FRONTAL TEACHING IN EFL CLASSES

UNIVERZITA PARDUBICE
FAKULTA FILOZOFICKÁ
FRONTAL TEACHING IN EFL CLASSES
DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE
2006
Zorka STÍNKOVÁ
UNIVERSITY OF PARDUBICE
FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES
FRONTAL TEACHING IN EFL CLASSES
THESIS
AUTHOR: Zorka Stínková
SUPERVISOR: Mgr. Pavel Brebera
2006
UNIVERZITA PARDUBICE
FAKULTA FILOZOFICKÁ
KATEDRA ANGLISTIKY A AMERIKANISTIKY
FRONTÁLNÍ VYUČOVÁNÍ
V HODINÁCH ANGLICKÉHO JAZYKA
DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE
AUTOR PRÁCE: Zorka Stínková
VEDOUCÍ PRÁCE: Mgr. Pavel Brebera
2006
Prohlašuji:
Tuto práci jsem vypracovala samostatně. Veškeré literární prameny a informace, které jsem
v práci využila, jsou uvedeny v seznamu použité literatury.
Byla jsem seznámena s tím, že se na moji práci vztahují práva a povinnosti vyplývající ze
zákona č. 121/2000 Sb., autorský zákon, zejména se skutečností, že Univerzita Pardubice má
právo na uzavření licenční smlouvy o užití této práce jako školního díla podle § 60 odst. 1
autorského zákona, a s tím, že pokud dojde k užití této práce mnou nebo bude poskytnuta
licence o užití jinému subjektu, je Univerzita Pardubice oprávněna ode mne požadovat
přiměřený příspěvek na úhradu nákladů, které na vytvoření díla vynaložila, a to podle
okolností až do jejich skutečné výše.
Souhlasím s prezenčním zpřístupněním své práce v Univerzitní knihovně Univerzity
Pardubice.
V Pardubicích dne 30. 06. 2006
Zorka Stínková
Abstract
This thesis focuses on frontal teaching in EFL Classes. The first part of the thesis describes
the specification of frontal teaching, its potential and limitations. The author describes the use
of frontal teaching in relation to aims, types and phases of activities. The thesis further deals
with roles of the teacher, learner and learning material in relation to frontal teaching. The next
part concentrates on classroom interaction, especially the interaction in frontal teaching and
aspects connected with it. The last chapter of the theoretical part concentrates on teacher’s
beliefs, especially beliefs in teaching and learning. The practical part consists of two
researches and one interview. In the first research, the author tries to find out the proportional
representation of frontal teaching and different organisational forms. The second research
concentrates on the use of frontal teaching with different types of activities and the
functionality of frontal teaching with these types of activities and effectiveness of frontal
teaching activities in relation to aims of English language teaching.
Abstrakt
Tato diplomová práce se soustředí na frontální vyučování v hodinách anglického jazyka.
První část diplomové práce popisuje specifika frontálního vyučování, jeho potenciál a
limitace. Autor popisuje použití frontálního vyučování ve vztahu k cílům, typům a fázím
aktivit. Tato diplomová práce dále pojednává o rolích učitele, žáka a vyučovacích materiálů
ve vztahu k frontálnímu vyučování. Další část se soustředí na interakci ve třídě, konkrétně na
interakci ve frontálním vyučování a aspekty s ní související. Poslední kapitola teoretické části
se soustředí na názory a přesvědčení učitele, zejména na jeho názory na vyučování a učení se.
Praktická část obsahuje dva výzkumy a jeden rozhovor. V prvním výzkumu se autor snaží
zjistit proporcionální zastoupení frontálního vyučování a ostatních organizačních forem.
Druhý výzkum se soustředí na použití frontálního vyučování s různými typy aktivit a na
funkčnost frontálního vyučování s těmito typy aktivit a na efektivitu frontálního vyučování ve
vztahu k cílům výuky anglického jazyka.
Contents
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.
Specification of frontal teaching as one of the possible organisational form . . . . . . 3
2.1.
Development of frontal teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.
Potential and limitations of frontal teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
2.3.
Use of frontal teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
2.3.1. Use of frontal teaching in relation to aims of activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. Use of frontal teaching in relation to types of activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
2.3.3. Use of frontal teaching in relation to phases of activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
3.
Teacher’s beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
4.
Roles in frontal teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.
Roles of the teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2.
Roles of learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
4.3.
Roles of learning materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
5.
Classroom interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.
Teacher-learner/learners interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
5.2.
Learner-learner interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
5.2.1. Maximizing learners’ interaction in frontal teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
5.3.
Teacher talking time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
5.3.1. Questioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
5.3.2. Teacher’s action zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
5.4.
Student talking time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.
Criteria for assessment of the use of frontal teaching activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
7.
Practical part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
7.1.
Proportional representation of frontal teaching and different organisational forms . . . .42
7.2.
Analyses of the observation sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
7.3.
Analysis of the interview with the observed teacher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
8.
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Resumé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
1. Introduction
The thesis focuses on frontal teaching in English classes. The reasons for writing this
paper are based on my personal experience. When I attended basic school and later grammar
school, the most frequently used organisational form during the English classes was frontal
teaching. It was not only this experience that made me think about this topic. Mainly, I started
to think about organisational forms during my teaching practice observations and my own
teaching practice. I found out that frontal teaching is still widely used more than other
organisational forms such as group work and pair work and materials used during the lessons
are sometimes more or less supporting frontal teaching.
The following chapters are describing aspects connected with frontal teaching. In the
second chapter, the specification of frontal teaching is described. This chapter focuses on the
development of frontal teaching, furthermore, it specifies advantages and disadvantages of
frontal teaching. This chapter covers the use of frontal teaching, especially in relation to aims,
types and phases of activities. The third chapter discusses the roles adopted in frontal
teaching, it describes roles of the teacher, learner and also roles of teaching materials. Chapter
four deals with classroom interaction, mainly on teacher-learner interaction, which occurs
mostly during frontal teaching, but this chapter also mentions the possible interaction among
the learners in frontal teaching, though this does not usually occur. Maximization of the
interaction and, moreover, participation of learners in frontal teaching is discussed in this
chapter. Teacher talking time and learner talking time are other factors that this chapter deals
with. Since the teacher’s influence in frontal teaching is crucial, this chapter also deals with
teacher questioning and teacher’s action zone. To find out something about the subjective and
objective influence of the teacher and his assumptions about teaching and learning, it is
important to explore his beliefs, which are described on a general level in chapter five.
The main aim of the practical part is to use the theoretical background and results of
the practical research to support these hypotheses:
Frontal teaching is so far more used organisational form in the teaching and learning
process than pair work and group work.
The use of frontal teaching with the observed activities functions according to
the
criteria described in the theoretical part and fulfils the aim of English language
teaching.
The observation sheets analyse the activities done during the lesson, the organisational forms
used with the observed activities, the length of teacher talk and learner talk and the interaction
patterns. Because the observations were done in the lessons of one teacher, the interview with
the teacher was done in order to find out the assumptions of the teacher about the aspects
connected with organisation of the lesson, especially organisational forms and the teacher’s
beliefs connected with teaching and learning process.
To conclude with, without any prejudice, the pronoun “he” is used to refer to the
teacher. It also needs to be emphasized that all Czech sources used for paraphrases are
translated by myself.
2. Specification of frontal teaching as one of the possible organisational forms
Jeremy Harmer defines frontal teaching as a grouping where whole class is working
together with the teacher. The teacher usually stands in front of the class and monitors or
controls learners who work in the same pace and rhythm (Harmer 1991: 205). Harmer claims
that frontal teaching “is still the most common teacher-student interaction in many cultures”
(Harmer 2001: 114). Richards and Lockhart add that frontal teaching is the most frequently
used technique at schools (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 147). Frontal teaching is a teachercontrolled organisational form where the teacher usually acts as a controller or assessor
(Harmer 1991: 243). Good and Brophy in Richards and Lockhart say that during frontal
teaching activities:
the teacher typically begins a lesson by reviewing prerequisite material, then
introduces and develops new concepts or skills, then leads the group in a recitation or
supervised practice or application activity, and then assigns
seatwork or homework for
students to do on their own. (Good and Brophy 1987: 353 in Richards, Lockhart 1996: 147)
Even though the individuality of a learner should be taken in account, still, the teacher is the
one who leads the lesson and together with it also sets the dynamics of a class. In frontal
teaching, the whole lesson is more or less directed by the teacher (Richards, Lockhart 1996:
146).
According to Scrivener, five basic organisational forms can be recognized in
learning/teaching process: “the whole class working together with the teacher, the whole class
mixing together as individuals; small groups (three to eight people), pairs, individual work”
(Scrivener 1998: 13). In the following chapters, frontal teaching, meaning both the whole
class working together with the teacher and whole class mixing together as individuals, will
be described.
Byrne points out four different ways of teaching the whole class:
• working with students individually (T:S or S:T);
• getting the students to work with one another (S:S);
• doing the chorus work;
• doing team work.
(Byrne 1987: 15)
The first example, the teacher working with learners individually, given by Byrne is usually
done after some chorus work when the teacher does some drill or a language game. The
second example, getting learners to work with one another, is often called ‘open pairs’. It is
applied when the dialogues are repeated or during question-answer work and different
controlled drills. Chorus work, as Byrne suggests, can be used for repetitions or controlled
drills again. Team work, the last option pointed out by Byrne, is useful with language games,
which might be the “effective way of involving learners in whole-class activities” (Byrne
1987: 15-16).
In the following parts of chapter 2 the development of frontal teaching, its advantages,
disadvantages and its use in relation to aims, phases and types of activities are described.
2.1. Development of frontal teaching
Organisational forms, in which teaching and learning process is conducted, have a
long history. The changes that have happened during the long period of time have been
caused by the changes in the function of a school and new tasks in the teaching process. That
was also caused by the changes of different educational approach but also in the character of
teacher’s and learner’s actions (Skalková 1999: 203).
The development of frontal teaching has a long history. The main development of
frontal teaching in the Czech schools dates back to the seventeenth century to the times of Jan
Amos Komenský. With the growth of trade, manufacture and sciences there was the need to
provide new organisation of the teaching process for larger population. Jan Amos Komenský
was the first pedagogist who came with the new democratic tendencies that were further
developed by him in the book called “Velká didaktika”. Learners of approximately the same
age and level were divided into classes. The subject matter was dispersed into individual
lessons with their specific didactic goal. Even though this was a big step forward in the
development of education, still, it had some minuses and it was not realized in the ideal form
(Skalková 1999: 203-204).
Later J. F. Herbart, a German pedagogist, whose tendencies are based on those
expressed by Komenský (Štverák 1988: 103), introduced his teacher-directed theory and the
system of frontal teaching became the framework for teaching. This organisational form was
used without any consideration of learner’s needs and character of the subject matter.
Skalková claims that the learner was perceived as a passive receiver of the knowledge
(Skalková 1999: 204). Herbart’s theory supporting frontal teaching has become popular and
has been so far commonly used organisational form in most of the Czech schools.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, frontal teaching was highly criticized by
many specialists on pedagogy. This organisational form, where learners were only passive
participants of the learning process, needed to be reformed (Skalková 1999: 204). With the
reformation, new organisational forms have been developed.
2.2. Potential and limitations of frontal teaching
Although frontal teaching has many limitations, it definitely has a great potential
that cannot be underestimated. Among the advantages proposed by Richards and Lockhart is
that it gives the teacher the opportunity to teach a large group of learners at the same time
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 148). Frontal teaching “reinforces a sense of belonging among the
group of members, which we as teachers need to foster” (Williams, Burden 1997: 79).
Harmer explains that it gives learners the feeling that they all work together and have the
same opportunity to react; they can share their feelings in the whole-class setting. Moreover,
it creates more engaging atmosphere when all learners feel the same amusement when they
work together in frontal organisational form (Harmer 2001: 114). Richards and Lockhart add
that: “students can feel that they are a part of the mainstream group” (Richards, Lockhart
1996, 148), which means that learners are not stressed by any treatment of individuals but as a
group. Harmer indicates that, in frontal teaching, the teacher can get the general view of the
learners’ progress not only on the individual level so the teacher is able to “ ‘gauge the mood’
of the class in general” (Harmer 2001: 114). Harmer claims that the use of frontal teaching is
good for the whole-class concentration on teacher’s talk or activity. Teacher’s talk is followed
by all learners at the same time which may become very useful in terms of classroom
dynamics. Moreover, teacher is usually perceived as a good language model for learners
(Harmer 1991: 243).
Another advantage given by Harmer is that it is not time demanding when giving
explanations and instructions while in smaller groups it would mean that the teacher would
have to provide the information more than once (Harmer 2001: 114). However, Richards and
Lockhart propose that frontal teaching can also “serve as a preparation for subsequent
activities which can be completed individually or in groups” (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 148).
The use frontal teaching is useful with activities where the role of the teacher is that of
a controller (Harmer 2001: 114). Harmer defines controllers as ones who “in various other
ways exemplify the qualities of a teacher-fronted classroom” (Harmer 2001: 58).
When the whole class is working together, according to Harmer’s view, it supports the
feelings of security of both the teacher and learners and the teacher is taken as a direct
authority (Harmer 2001: 115). Skalková suggests that the relative stability of the teaching
process allows the teacher to enforce the individual approach to learners. It develops social
relations between learners when they are getting to know each other and furthermore it
encourages emotional atmosphere for learners’ cooperation (Skalková 1999: 205).
However, frontal teaching has many disadvantages noted by many pedagogists and
specialists on didactics that have to be taken in account. Richards and Lockhart claim that:
“Whole-class teaching assumes that all students can proceed at the same pace” (Richards,
Lockhart 1996: 148). Harmer’s presentation of this problem says: “Everyone is forced to do
the same thing at the same time and at the same pace” (Harmer 2001: 115). It is obvious that
this organisational form does not respect needs of the individual and more or less concentrates
on the group as the whole. As the result, learners with higher-level of proficiency in English
may become bored after while and are held back. On the other hand, learners with lower level of proficiency may find the pace too fast and it may be difficult for them to follow
teacher’s instructions or talk and may be lost. During frontal teaching, the teacher usually
tends to concentrate on the “average learners” and overlooks the rest of the class (Skalková
1999: 207).
Harmer proposes another disadvantage. During frontal teaching, learners get only a
little opportunity to talk or practice, which may cause that they may become bored after
while. This situation may usually occur in the classes with high amount of learners (Harmer
1991: 243), where there is little time for all learners to interact.
Because of the teacher’s concentration on learners as a group, Harmer claims that the
individuals have just a little chance to express their ideas (Harmer 2001: 115). Richards and
Lockhart add that “teacher-dominated” (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 148) instruction gives a
learner little opportunity to participate. What is closely connected to Richards’s and
Lockhart’s opinion is that learners do not take responsibility for their own learning, because
the teacher is the one who transmits the knowledge to them. As a result, learners do not
research or discover things by themselves (Harmer 2001:115). On the other hand, learners
who dislike talking or are not used to talk in front of the whole class, either because they are
shy or nervous, may feel under pressure, which makes them feel uncomfortable in such
situation (Harmer 2001: 115).
The last disadvantage proposed by Harmer is that frontal teaching is not the best
organisational form for communicative tasks. Harmer points out that: “Communication
between individuals is more difficult in a group of twenty or thirty than it is in groups of four
or five” (Harmer 2001: 115). Richards and Lockhart suggest that frontal teaching activities
should be adapted so that learners have more opportunities for their active participation and
communicative interaction within the classroom (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 148-149).
Moreover, communication among the learner and the teacher is usually restricted to
the formally controlling way of instructions which does not support any communicative aims.
Hendrich suggests that for applying communicative aspects it is needed that the teacher
should formulate the instructions according to the communicative way not in the formally
controlling way, for example, ‘express disagreement’ instead of ‘make a negative form’
(Hendrich 1988: 319). Hendrich claims that when using frontal teaching for practising
question-answer exchange, it is necessary that the teacher should talk to a concrete addressee.
As a result, there would be no time for all the learners to communicate with the teacher during
frontal teaching activities (Hendrich 1988: 319).
2.3. Use of frontal teaching
The use of frontal teaching is mainly directed by the choice of the teacher. According
to Richards’s and Lockhart’s view, even though learners may have some individual needs
“the interactional dynamics of a classroom are largely a product of choices the teacher makes
about the learning arrangements he sets up within the lesson” (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 146).
Nevertheless the use of frontal teaching and different organisational forms is guided by the
nature of the activities, their aims, types and phases. The following chapters will discuss the
possibilities of the use of frontal teaching directly in the English lessons especially in relation
to aims, phases and types of activities.
2.3.1. Use of frontal teaching in relation to aims of activities
Skalková suggests that organisational forms are the important part in achieving
specific aims. In the real process of teaching, the relation of aim and subject matter is never
isolated. Moreover, this relation is connected with the relation of aids used in the process of
teaching. Furthermore, these relations are incorporated into the complex interaction of teacher
and learner/learners, where both of the participants play an active role. The aids are
represented either by the subject matter, methods and organisational forms in
teaching/learning process (Skalková 1999: 111).
There may be distinguished three types of aims in the teaching and learning process:
general/complex that are usually formulated in some pedagogical documents; partial aims,
which include subject matter, grade, topic and lesson; specific objectives that are usually
achieved on the basis of short-term activities in the lessons (Skalková 1999: 111). According
to Richards and Lockhart, general goals are the basic units in terms of the choice of the
activities that will be used in the lesson which may help to attain the specific goals of the
activities (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 161).
When planning the efficient and effective lesson, the teacher should usually state the
aim of the lesson together with student’s activities, timing, teaching aids, teaching strategies,
possible problems that may occur during the lesson and last but not least the organisational
form (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 79).
There is a wide range of activities that might be used in English lessons. They differ in
their nature and aims (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 28). According to this, the choice of organisational
forms is necessary to be considered. The use of frontal teaching in relation to aims is bound to
the limitations of frontal teaching itself.
However, the English foreign language classroom is a place where students develop
communicative competence which is considered as the overall aim of language teaching.
The goal of language acquisition is communicative competence: the ability to use the
language correctly and appropriately to accomplish communication goals. The desired
outcome of the language learning process is the ability to communicate competently,
not the ability to use the language exactly as a native speaker does.
(The Essentials of Language Teaching web: Teaching
Goals and Methods – Goal: Communicative Competence
2003, 2004)
Anna Flyman-Mattsson claims that: „Focus on form or on meaning is an important
division in communicative language teaching (Anna Flyman-Mattsson 1999, web).
Communicative classroom more focuses on meaning rather than form.
As it has been previously mentioned in chapter 2.1., frontal teaching is not the best for
activities with a communicative aim (Harmer 2001:115). The specific goal of communicative
activities is usually, stated from the point of view of learners, “to be able to use the target
language” (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 29). Such communicative activities include group
discussions, exchanging the information, opinions, problem solving, making arrangements or
decisions with others, role-plays, dialogues etc. (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 29). It is obvious that
there must be some interaction between learners, which frontal teaching does not support.
Frontal teaching is usually used with activities like giving instructions, drills, question-answer
exchanges, choral repetitions and activities focusing on form rather than content, where there
is usually no exchange of information. It means that frontal teaching more focuses on
grammatical structures, form and accuracy of the language whereas communicative activities
focus on the meaning and fluency, stand on some real-life situation and involve “students in
real or realistic communication, where the accuracy of the language they use is less important
than successful achievement of the communicative task they are performing” (Harmer 2001:
85). Anna Flyman-Mattsson suggests that group work is a preferred organisational form to
fulfil the needs of communicative language teaching (Anna Flyman-Mattsson 1999, web).
Students are allowed to negotiate the meaning and they do not have to concentrate on the
accuracy of the language as they have to when they are in the charge of the teacher during
frontal teaching.
To conclude with, frontal teaching is not the best organisational form to fulfil the
communicative aims of language teaching and learning, since it concentrates on form and
accuracy which does not support the theory of communicative competence, where it is
important to teach learners, as Hendrich suggests, not only language competence but also use
of established socio-cultural rules such as, for example, when to talk, when to be silent, what
to say and how to speak.
2.3.2. Use of frontal teaching in relation to types of activities
The use of different types of activities may influence whether to use frontal teaching
or not. There are many types of activities in teaching/learning process and that is why this
chapter is going to focus on types of activities in general. The typical classification of
activities proposed by Harmer is “PPP”, which stands for Presentation - Practice - Production
procedure (Harmer 2001: 80). Nunan and Lamb claim that: „This procedure was based on the
psychological model that viewed learning as a linear process of understanding, internalizing,
and activating knowledge” (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 46). In the following lines the use of frontal
teaching in relation to these types of activities will be discussed.
According to Richards and Lockhart, activities where the new target language items
are presented are called presentation activities (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 163). During the
presentation activity the teacher clarifies or introduces a new target language item (Nunan,
Lamb 1996: 46). On this account, the teacher is the one who presents the item/s and learners
follow his/her speech. In such activities the teacher usually acts as a controller who stands in
front of the class and gives explanations or instructions (Harmer 2001: 114). In this case, the
use of frontal teaching is vital, since it is the best way how to present new items and material.
Further more it is not time demanding, which means that the teacher does not necessarily have
to repeat things (Harmer 2001: 114).
The definition of practice activities given by Richards and Lockhart say that these
activities “involve performance or learning of an item that has been previously presented”
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 163). The learners become familiar with the presented items by
using different types of drills (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 46). In this case the use of frontal teaching
may be used during choral repetition tasks or individual repetition tasks, where the teacher
‘conducting’ urges learners to repeat words, phrases or sentences (Harmer 2001: 80). Or it
may be used during response drills, where the teacher asks questions or gives clues and
learners make the response (Harmer 2001: 80). Richards and Lockhart state that in such types
of activities the teacher controls the learner’s performance or stands as a model for their
performance (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 164). Harmer claims that, when learners practise the
sentences, it is good to put learners in pairs in order to check the effectiveness of learning
(Harmer 2001: 81).
During production activities learners take control over the knowledge they have
acquired during the presentation and practice (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 164). Nunan and
Lamb suggest that, in this type of activity, learners should be able to use the target items
actively in meaningful situations (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 46). These kinds of activities are for
example role-plays or dialogues with different purposes (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 164).
These types of activities usually carry some communicative objectives that can only be done
in groups or pairs, so it is not possible to use frontal teaching organisational form since its use
is not vital with activities with communicative purposes. On the other hand, with activities
where the teacher questions and learners answer by making their own sentences without any
teacher model, frontal teaching can be used to guide these activities. Again the teacher
controls the activity and interacts with learners.
Harmer proposes that the PPP procedure has been criticized over the last few years
(Harmer 2001: 82). Nunan and Lamb point out that the classification of activities according to
the PPP procedure “represent a gradual movement from high- to relative low-structure
interactions (although many production tasks give the illusion of student control)” (Nunan,
Lamb 1996: 46). This means that the most preferred organisational form such as frontal
teaching is rather preferable in these types of activities, especially in presentation and
practice.
Frontal teaching activities may also be classified from the viewpoint of fluency and
accuracy as suggests Byrne in her book Techniques for Classroom Interaction. The reason for
the use of frontal teaching with activities based on accuracy is that it requires teacher’s
control. In so far that these are activities, such as controlled drills, where learners have no
choice in what they say, and are not much useful when learners need to learn grammar or
vocabulary, but their use is vital when teaching pronunciation. In these activities, teacher
stands as a good language model (Byrne 1987: 18). The other activities used in the wholeclass work are exercises. By the term exercises is meant that these are usually textbook
activities. Byrne points out that: “They are often in the form of questions and answers, rightwrong statements and sentences for completion” (Byrne 1987: 20). Byrne further adds that it
is often quite time consuming, so it is better for learners to prepare the answers in advance in
pairs and then check the exercises with the whole class (Byrne 1987: 21). Language games
are also used as accuracy-based activities during frontal teaching. Among language games
done in frontal teaching belong, for example, sentence building and guessing games. Byrne
proposes that: “...they are a very good alternative to drills for many kinds of accuracy work”
(Byrne 1987: 21). Language games may be compared to drills but they are not as enjoyable
for learners as classic drills, and are easier to remember. Different accuracy-based activity
done in frontal teaching is listening. Byrne remarks that among these activities belong, for
example, picture dictations, picture descriptions, ‘describe and note’ activity and word Bingo
(Byrne 1987: 25-27). As Byrne notes, the last but one activity based on accuracy is writing.
Though writing requires some kind of interaction, the purpose of classic school written work
is usually to be read and corrected (Byrne 1987: 28). According to Byrne one more activity
based on accuracy and used together with frontal teaching is controlled conversation, since it
is important to speak to the learners (Byrne 1987: 30).
Though, the question of use of frontal teaching may be quite discussible, it is still
used, especially in the way and with activities suggested by Byrne. At first, there is the
question of why to use frontal teaching with fluency-based activities, since the most fluencybased activities are done in groups. The use of fluency-based activities is simple. Byrne says
that sometimes it is necessary to get learners speak, to show them, they may use the language,
too (Byrne 1987: 53). Byrne points out some of the examples of fluency-based activities that
can be used when working in frontal teaching organisational form. One of them is
conversation, which is used when the teacher needs to encourage learners “to join in without
worrying about mistakes” (Byrne 1987: 57). During this activity, learners are exchanging
ideas, either among themselves and the teacher. Byrne says that: “The main advantage for
them is that they hear a live speaker who is interacting with them” (Byrne 1987: 57).
Discussion is the next fluency-based activity used during the frontal teaching. However, this
activity is usually done in groups, since the learners have more opportunities to join in. Byrne
claims that, still, the class discussion is very important. In groups, “students exchange ideas
and come to conclusion” (Byrne 1987: 59), whereas learners as a whole class “compare ideas
and discuss them” (Byrne 1987: 59). The advantage of a class discussion for the teacher is
that he may take control of the learners’ language and can get to know something about them.
Byrne suggests other type of fluency work in frontal teaching, such as simulation (Byrne
1987: 62). Although, role-plays are not possible to be done in frontal teaching, simulations are
closely connected with them. During simulations, learners play a particular part according to
the given instructions. Though not everybody can adopt a speaking role, all the learners are
involved in some way, either as the “main speakers”, “minor speakers”, “reporters”, or
“audience” (Byrne 1987: 63-64). But still, the main speakers “will provide most of the
interaction” (Byrne 1987: 63). However, games are the next fluency-based activities, as Byrne
proposes. Games are encouraging for learners, but the participation of all learners is still not
wholly possible. In spite of that, learners might be again involved by dividing them into teams
and audience. This may increase the interest of the learners since ‘the audience’, possibly
knowing the answer, may look forward to who will be the winner. These games are, for
example, guessing games or memory games that allow learners to use the language freely
(Byrne 1987: 65-67). According to Byrne, story-telling may also be used as a fluency-based
activity in frontal teaching. Byrne says that listening to the stories might be quite enjoyable
for the learners as the teacher tells the story (Byrne 1987: 68-70). According to Byrne, other
skills like listening or writing may proceed as the fluency-based activities during the frontal
teaching. Listening is connected, for example, with story-telling, where learners have to listen
to the teacher as a whole-class and then the learners may retell what they have already heard.
With writing, the whole class work is usually present when the teacher provides learners with
the situation they will write about (Byrne 1987: 71-74).
This division on fluency and accuracy activities given by Byrne is very interesting,
and important, since it shows which activities allow the use of frontal teaching and which not.
Mainly, frontal teaching is used for accuracy work, but its use with fluency activities cannot
be underestimated.
However, there is another classification of activity types built up by Littlewood, which
is taken from the perspective of communicative activities. According to his Communicative
Language Teaching, he divides communicative activities into pre-communicative and
communicative (Littlewood 1990). The setting of a class depends on the roles that the teacher
adopts during pre-communicative and communicative activities. In pre-communicative
activities the teacher usually works with the whole class. He usually facilitates the
communication process between all learners (Breen, Candlin 1980: 99). This may be the
reason why the use frontal teaching during structural communication would not be of any
harm. Since this stage of pre-communicative activities is mainly based on some drill, where
no information between learners is transformed (Littlewood 1990). Richards and Lockhart
define pre-communicative activities as “accuracy-based activities which focus on presentation
of structures, functions, and vocabulary” (Richards, Lockhart 1996:119). This means that the
accuracy-based activities should usually have some kind of teacher-control over this stage, so,
again, the use of frontal teaching is usually used, which has been already mentioned in the
previous lines. Working in frontal teaching organisational form usually serves as a
preparation for subsequent activities which can be completed individually or in groups. This
is, for example, the case of communicative activities, which are the following stage of
Communicative Language Teaching. During this stage, teacher usually acts as an independent
participant. Since the pre-communicative activities are based on the form, the communicative
activities stand on some real-life situation and involve “students in real or realistic
communication, where the accuracy of the language they use is less important than successful
achievement of the communicative task they are performing” (Harmer 2001: 85). As a result,
the use of frontal teaching is not vital. There is the need to get the information across and by
the teacher-directed frontal teaching the learners would have just a little opportunity to
interact. These tasks involve some dialogues or role-plays where the teacher’s intervention
should be reduced to a minimum (Harmer 2001: 86). Harmer suggests that this approach is
usually based on a group cooperation or pair work (Harmer 2001: 86). Frontal teaching in this
case would not offer what is needed for the learners’ participation even though the
information may be transformed from the teacher to the learner, where, as it has been
previously mentioned in the preceding lines, would offer learners less opportunities to
interact. Furthermore, it does not support the general aim of language teaching, which is
communicative competence.
However, this is just an illustration of in which activities frontal teaching may be used
and where this use is not in place. The use of organisational forms depends on the types and
nature of activities. It may be clearly said that the use of frontal teaching with communicative
activities has been previously discussed as unsuitable. Frontal teaching offers just a few
opportunities for learners to interact, thus, the use of organisational forms with different kinds
of activities must be considered
2.3.3. Use of frontal teaching in relation to phases of activities
This chapter will concentrate on the use of frontal teaching in relation to phases of
activities. Here, different stages of activities will be described and, according to this, the use
of frontal teaching will be discussed.
According to Scrivener’s description, there are five stages of activities: Lead in, set up,
run, close, and post activity (Scrivener 1994). Lead in phase of activity is usually used to raise
the learners’ motivation or interest in the activity. The lead in phase usually contains some
pre-activities that introduce what the learners are going to do in the next phases of the
activity. In a whole class setting, the teacher presents what the learners are going to do and
what is the aim of the activity. It is obvious that these actions must be done by the teacher
since he is the one who leads the lesson and knows the content. In this case the use of frontal
teaching is vital, since the teacher acts as a controller and directs the activity. But when the
lead in phase is represented by some warm-up activity which is supposed to be done in groups
or pairs the ones who interact are learners and the teacher acts as an observer or facilitator.
According to the Harmer, the most important thing to consider is the context (Harmer 1991).
The next stage of activity is ‘set up’. This stage is more about the organisation of the class,
about giving clear instructions or demonstrating the example. The one who organises this
stage is again the teacher who decides about the setting of the class that is organised
according to the aim and nature of the activity. The teacher usually gives instructions or
demonstrates the example. However, this may only be done by frontal teaching, because
giving instructions to the whole-class is more efficient and time saving. The next phase of the
activities is ‘run’. The role of the teacher together with the setting of a class depends on the
type of activity, which has been previously described in chapter 2.3.2. The last but one phase
of the activities is ‘close’. Closing the activity is usually done by the teacher with learners
working in the previously set arrangement. The last stage of activities is post activity. This is
usually the feedback session or some follow-up activity. Feedback may be either provided by
the teacher in the whole-class setting when the teacher asks questions and learners response,
assessing the class as the whole or by learners’ self-correction where it may be done by the
teacher asking in frontal teaching arrangement. There are many forms how feedback may be
realized. Close phase may also be realized by providing some extra follow-up activities where
the setting of the class is not bound to any extra organisational form. Again the use of frontal
teaching and different organisational forms depend on the types of activities the teacher
chooses for the lessons (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 195).
3. Teacher’s beliefs
As it has been mentioned in this thesis many times, frontal teaching is the most used
and sometimes even preferred form of a class organization. Why it is so, is the question that is
quite important. To find out something about the teacher, it is useful to explore his or her
beliefs to find out more about his or her ‘culture of teaching’. Every teacher has his own
assumptions about teaching and learning processes. These are usually influenced by beliefs
the teacher has either about teaching, learning, about curriculum, about English, or about
teaching as a profession. Richards and Lockhart claim that: “Teacher’s belief systems are
built up gradually over time and consist of both subjective and objective dimensions”
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 30). They add that some of the beliefs may be complex or simple.
Richards and Lockhart list six sources that teacher’s beliefs may be derived from (Richards,
Lockhart 1996: 30):
- Teachers’ own experience as language learners: “All teachers were once students and
their beliefs about teaching are often a reflection of how they themselves were taught”
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 30).
- Experience of what works best: Teachers usually experience many different teaching
strategies and find out what works well and what not. Richards and Lockhart claim that
“experience is the primary source of beliefs about teaching” (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 31).
- Established practice: Each school or institution prefers different teaching styles and
practice and together with that beliefs differ.
- Personality factors: Beliefs about teaching differ with different personal preferences
of the teacher.
- Educationally based or research-based principles: Richards and Lockhart explain
that: “Teachers may draw on their understanding of a learning principle in psychology,
second language acquisition, or education and try to apply it in the classroom. (Richards,
Lockhart 1996: 31)
- Principles derived from an approach or method: Teachers may prefer some method
or approach and believe in its effectiveness, and, subsequently, implement it in the classroom.
It may be said that teaching is influenced by the knowledge of the subject matter the
teacher carries and also by beliefs he develops through his teaching experience and practice.
Brunning on Staff Matters web states that: „Teachers hold many beliefs and attitudes that
affect their attitudes and behaviour in the classroom” (Brunning on Staff Matters web:
Teacher’s beliefs and classroom practice 2005). Hofer on Staff Matters web divides teacher’s
beliefs about knowledge into four dimensions:
• Certainty of knowledge – Some people believe that knowledge is fixed,
while other people believe that knowledge is fluid.
• Simplicity of knowledge - Some people believe that knowledge consists of an
accumulation of facts, while other people believe that knowledge is a system of
related constructs.
• Source of knowledge - Some people believe that knowledge is transmitted from
external sources while other people believe that knowledge is internally constructed.
• Justification for knowing - Some people rely upon external authority while other
people believe that knowledge relies on personal evaluation and integration.
(Hofer 2000; Hofer & Pintrich 1997
on Staff Matters web: Teacher’s beliefs and
classroom practice 2005)
Beliefs about knowledge are closely connected with beliefs about teaching and
learning. Teaching intentions and strategies are influenced by the teacher, whether he is
focusing on himself or on learners. Frontal teaching is a teacher-focused organisational form,
where teacher transmits information to the learners that means that his intentions and
strategies rely on himself rather than on students, where students are only inactive participants
of the teaching and learning process. Staff Matters web says that: “Teachers’ beliefs affect
teacher-student interactions and instructional planning” (Staff Matters web: Teacher’s beliefs
and classroom practice 2005). Furthermore, the teacher’s teaching conceptions might be
influenced by the teacher’s “perception of the teaching environment, such as the degree of
control over what is taught and how it is taught…” (Prosser and Trigwell 1997 on Staff
Matters web: Teacher’s beliefs and classroom practice 2005). Brunning et al. on Staff Matters
web states that beliefs about teaching are connected with the beliefs in “external, teacherdirected, or student-internal knowledge-constructed models” (Brunning et al. on Staff Matters
web: Teacher’s beliefs and classroom practice 2005).
To summarize, the teacher using frontal teaching believes in the teacher-focused
classroom, teacher-directed knowledge constructed models and believes in traditional
organisation of the class. Frontal teaching belongs to a traditional form of teaching which is
still often used, even though the group work and pair work have been stressed as the methods
that help to develop learners’ communicative competence. The explanation might be “that
teachers in most cases have successfully gone through a traditional school system and benefit
from teacher-centred education” (web - Lancaster University U.K.: Teacher Beliefs 20022005).
4. Roles in the classroom
In the following chapters we shall look at the roles of teachers, learners, and learning
materials, especially in frontal teaching organisational form. Frontal teaching influences the
role of the teacher in the classroom, and that is why this chapter is included to see the
boundaries outlined by frontal teaching. Firstly, the roles of teachers in frontal teaching will
be discussed, secondly different roles of the learners according to frontal teaching will be
described and, lastly, there will be noted the influence of teaching/learning materials on the
interaction in the classroom.
4. 1. Roles of the teacher
This chapter is devoted to the roles that teacher can adopt during frontal teaching.
There are many methodologies undertaking the roles of teachers, but according to the scope
of this thesis, this chapter will mainly concentrate firstly on the division of teacher roles
proposed by Harmer, which means that the eight roles of teachers (Harmer 2001: 58-62) will
be analysed considering frontal teaching and its influence on the teacher roles. Next, the three
types of teachers suggested by Scrivener will be discussed (Scrivener 1998: 6) and, lastly,
some suggestions by Hedge and Richards and Lockhart will help to compare the ideas and
view of the teacher roles in frontal teaching.
As it has been mentioned in the previous lines, the main division of teacher roles
proposed by Harmer are those of controller, organiser, assessor, prompter, participant,
resource, tutor, and observer (Harmer 2001: 58-62).
To start with, the role of a teacher as a controller will be analysed. Harmer notes that
teachers acting as controllers “are in charge of the class and of the activity taking place in a
way that is substantially different from a situation where learners are working on their own in
groups” (Harmer 2001: 58). This means that controllers are those who direct the lesson. They
organise activities such as drills, reading aloud, and as Harmer suggests: “exemplify the
qualities of teacher-fronted classroom” (Harmer 2001: 58). This statement by Harmer gives
the clear proposal that this role of a teacher is the one that is most usual when working in
frontal teaching. When acting as controllers teachers are the ones who transmit the knowledge
to learners. Though, as Harmer suggests, this role, together with frontal teaching have some
disadvantages. The teacher in this role serves as a source of inspiration for learners which
may not necessarily be true. The teacher in the role of a controller does not support learners’
experiential learning and does not offer much opportunities for learners to participate and
speak (Harmer 2001: 58), which goes together with disadvantages of frontal teaching, which
has been foreshadowed in chapter 2.2. Despite this fact, this role is the one that is most
frequent in frontal teaching, since it is teacher-directed role where explanations and
instructions are given or questions are asked. Harmer notes that: “this is the most common
teacher role” (Harmer 2001: 58). Role of a controller together with frontal teaching is still the
most common situations in the classroom.
The next role of the teacher is organiser. Harmer proposes that when the teacher acts
as organiser, he usually organises activities within the lesson such as giving the learners
information, telling them the procedure of the activity, putting them into pairs or groups, and
closing the activity (Harmer 2001: 58). It may be obvious that these stages of activities are
usually done frontally by the teacher who provides learners with the necessary information for
the activity to be done. The teacher as an organiser needs to be sure that learners understand
what they are supposed to do, so he organises the class as a whole, since it is not time
consuming and the whole class is listening to the teacher.
According to Harmer, the following role is one of the important roles that teachers can
adopt, since it is the one that tells learners how well they are doing in English. It is the role of
assessor. The question is whether it may be done frontally or not. The teacher in this role
usually provides learners with feedback, offers correction and grades them in other different
ways (Harmer 2001: 59). The teacher may use various procedures to do so. This means that
the teacher can assess learners individually by giving them marks or the teacher may assess
groups or pairs, again, on the individual basis, and, of course, frontal teaching can be used
especially when the teacher assesses the class as the whole or provides them with the
feedback by asking questions. The use of frontal teaching together with this role of assessor
may be discussed. However, as Harmer points out, the type of assessment and organisation of
that process is up to the teacher, who necessarily has to provide the learners with objective
sensitive approach (Harmer 2001: 60).
Though, the three previously discussed roles of the teacher partly support frontal
teaching, the following roles of the teachers are bit different in that. The first of them,
according to Harmer’s division, is the role of a prompter. In this role, the teacher usually
stands as a participant of learners work, and sometimes ‘pushes’ them forward, when they feel
lost or do not know what is going on (Harmer 2001: 60). The teacher approaches to learners
on the individual basis, according to their needs. As a result, the teacher is not able to do this
during frontal teaching. This happens during group work, pair work or individual work. The
role of the teacher as a prompter is supposed to start when the learners have their tasks set,
and their work is in process. The participation of the teacher is minimized, and he intervenes
only when it is needed.
When teachers act as participants, which is other role of teachers suggested by
Harmer, they act as a part of a group, they are actively joined in the activity together with
learners (Harmer 2001: 60-61). The teacher takes part in various tasks, which is something a
bit different from the previous roles. It is hard to say which organisational form is usually
used together with this role, but frontal teaching is not the organisational form to be used,
since, the teacher in frontal teaching is not able to participate in the collective work, though,
this may happen, as Byrne suggests, for example, during some language game based on
fluency such as simulation (Byrne 1987: 63). In frontal teaching, the teacher usually gives
instructions, organises the learners’ work or asks questions. Participant (teacher) is involved
in the procedure and does the same work as learners, which means that during participation,
the teacher does not direct the lesson, but participates.
However, there is the next role of the teacher. As Harmer notes, it is the role when the
teacher serves as a resource. The teacher answers learners’ questions, offers them some
guidance as to where the learner may find what he/she requires (Harmer 2001: 61). This may
be done in various ways. Either during the individual work, during pair work, during group
work, but also during the frontal teaching. Especially, when the teacher is explaining, the
learners may ask any questions concerning English, any culture facts, or different questions
concerning the topic. The teacher as a resource, working in frontal teaching, may offer this
information to the whole class in order not to repeat things more than once or just because the
teacher wants the whole class to know.
Harmer proposes that the following role of the teacher is quite restricted to the
intimate relationship with the learner. It is the role of tutor. Harmer suggests that when the
teacher acts as a tutor, he/she usually works with individual learners or small groups, giving
them advice they need. It is very difficult for a tutor to work with large groups since there
must be the intimate relationship than when acting as an organiser or controller (Harmer
2001: 62). As a result, the use of frontal teaching is not suitable for tutors because the needs
of individuals or small groups differ.
In order to provide some feedback to learners, teachers must also act as observers. An
observer, which is the role suggested by Harmer, monitors groups or individual learners in
order to offer them feedback (Harmer 2001: 62). The teacher may observe either individuals
or the whole class, therefore, it cannot be said in which organisational form the observer
works best, but Harmer proposes that: “when we are acting as controllers, giving feedback or
organising students, we need to be observing at the same time too” (Harmer 2001: 62). So far,
it may be said that the role of observer is not bound to any organisational form since it is
connected with different roles of teachers and thus also the situation when the role of an
observer is required.
Scrivener suggests the next division of teacher roles. He divided teachers into three
largely different kinds, such as: the explainer, the involver, and the enabler (Scrivener 1998:
6).
The explainer is the teacher who knows the subject matter well, but his knowledge of
methodology is limited. As a result, the explainer attaches himself to “explaining” or
“lecturing” (Scrivener 1998: 6) as a way of transmitting information to learners. Scrivener
notes that the active involvement of learners is minimal since they are usually asked to answer
a question or make notes or listen to what the teacher is saying (Scrivener 1998: 6). The
explainer may be compared to the role of a controller (Harmer 2001: 58) since there are some
common features that may be recognized - explaining, lecturing, transmitting the knowledge
from the teacher to a learner, minimal participation of learners etc. As it has been already
mentioned, the role of a controller and, it may be said, together with the explainer are the
typical roles of the teacher in frontal teaching organisational form.
However, the involver is the second type of teachers proposed by Scrivener (Scrivener
1998: 6). He is familiar with the subject matter, too, but also knows the methodology; the
involver “is able to use appropriate teaching and organisational procedures and techniques to
help students learn about the subject matter” (Scrivener 1998: 6). As Scrivener suggests,
giving explanations may be one of the techniques, but it is just “one option among many that
the teacher has at his disposal” (Scrivener 1998: 6). The involver is trying to involve learners
actively in the teaching/learning process but still the control over the class is up to the teacher.
It means that the involver is able to work in frontal teaching as well as in other organisational
forms but the teaching/learning process is more or less teacher-controlled.
The last kind of teacher proposed by Scrivener is the enabler. This teacher is familiar
with the subject matter, methodology, “but also has an awareness of how individuals and
groups are thinking and feeling within the class” (Scrivener 1998: 6). The enabler is not
‘afraid of’ sharing control over the class with his learners, or handing the control entirely to
them. As Scrivener adds, the enabler creates the conditions to enable “the students to learn for
themselves” (Scrivener 1998: 6). Scrivener notes that the enabler usually goes together with
the roles of “prompter” or “resource” (Harmer 2001: 60-61) when it is needed (Scrivener
1998: 6). As it has been previously outlined, the roles of prompter and resource are based on
the cooperation on the more individual level, which means that the teacher organises learners
more in pairs or groups, since they have different needs and, moreover, in pairs or groups,
they take more responsibility for their own learning. Frontal teaching would not be the best
organisational form for enablers, since it does not support cooperation among learners, not
even their participation in the learning/teaching process. Moreover, Harmer notes that frontal
teaching does not enable learners to develop responsibility for their own learning (Harmer
2001: 115).
However, Richards and Lockhart concentrate on the broader classification of the
teacher roles. They divide roles of teachers into four areas, where the first one is “roles
reflecting institutional factors”, the second one is “roles reflecting a teaching approach or
method”, the next roles are those “reflecting a personal view of teaching”, and the last area of
roles is “cultural dimension of roles” (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 98-109). According to this
thesis, it might be interesting to mention the area of roles reflecting a teaching approach or
method. Some methods and approaches require teachers to carry out particular roles in the
classroom together with the setting of a class, which will be compared in the following lines.
Richards and Lockhart start with the Direct Method. They suggest that this method “was one
of the first oral-based methods to be used in foreign language teaching” (Richards, Lockhart
1996: 101). Richards and Lockhart point out some guidelines for teachers to follow. It is for
example: “Never translate: demonstrate; never explain: act; never make a speech: ask
questions; never imitate mistakes: correct; never speak with single words: use sentences;
never speak too much: make students speak much...” (Richards, Lockhart: 1996: 102). Even
though this does not clearly tells us which organisational form is usually used but still, the
Direct Method was mainly based on question-answer exchange between the teacher and
learners in small, intensive classes, so frontal teaching was probably the one to be used.
Richards and Lockhart also take in account other roles influenced by Active teaching. They
propose that the primary roles of teachers in this method are “management and monitoring of
learning” (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 102). They further specify the teacher’s ‘duties’ during
this method which are: communicate clearly by giving directions, presenting information,
etc.; obtain and manage engagement by maintaining task focus, pacing instruction etc.;
monitor progress by reviewing work, adjusting instruction, etc.; provide immediate feedback
by informing learners, giving information about how to achieve success (Richards, Lockhart
1996: 102). Some of the teachers ‘duties’ are again teacher-directed and require the use of
frontal teaching since the teacher is still central in the teaching/learning process. The next
methods, pointed out by Richards and Lockhart are Cooperative Learning, Communicative
Language Teaching and Total Physical Response. Richards and Lockhart say that these
methods move away from the teacher-directed teaching (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 102). They
add that the roles of the teacher in the previously mentioned methods are sharing
responsibility with learners, structuring the activities to learners’ cooperation, facilitating the
communication, coordinating group activities, acting as an independent participant etc.
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 103). Role in frontal teaching is mainly that of a controller whereas
these roles mainly support group work or pair work since they support coordination and
participation of learners. These roles in different approaches and methods are mentioned just
for the illustration and interesting comparison of these methods and the roles of the teacher
together with frontal teaching. As Richards and Lockhart suggest, in teaching/learning
process “there has been a movement away from teacher-dominated modes of learning to more
learner-centred approaches, which has led to a reexamination of traditional teacher roles”
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 104).
Although the discussion about the teacher roles would take quite a long, this thesis is
based on frontal teaching and roles connected with it. To sum up, Hedge says that roles of the
teacher in frontal teaching are usually those of instructor, organiser, counsellor, and helper.
The teacher is an authority with a high status where he usually initiates, asks questions and
provides learners with feedback (Hedge 2000: 29).
4. 2. Roles of learners
Different organisational forms imply different roles of learners. According to frontal
teaching, it may be said that roles of learners might be quite clear. In frontal teaching, the
central person in the lesson is the teacher and the learners are less active and their
participation is minimal. As a result, the main role of the learner in frontal teaching is the
passive receiver of the knowledge. Parrott points out that “some models of learning and
teaching see students as sponges who soak up knowledge from teacher and textbook” (Parrott
1993: 63). Learners only absorb knowledge that is given by teachers in frontal teaching.
Nunan adds that there is a wide variety of roles that learners can adopt. The following roles
will be analysed according to frontal teaching. The first role that Nunan mentions is “the
learner as the passive recipient of outside stimuli” (Nunan 1990: 80), which means that
learners are passive receivers of the knowledge provided by the teacher, usually in frontal
teaching. The following role is “the learner as an interactor and negotiator who is capable of
giving as well as taking” (Nunan 1990: 80). Consequently, the learner has a chance to interact
and negotiate which is not possible when working in frontal teaching. However, the next role
of the learner is “a listener and performer who has little control over the content of learning”
(Nunan 1990: 80), which may correspond to the situation in frontal teaching, where teacher
controls, learners listen, and may time to time react to teacher’s questions. The next two roles
suggested by Nunan imply more learners’ participation, moreover, learners are supposed to
take responsibility for their own learning, which cannot be provided by the teacher in frontal
teaching. In one of the roles “the learner is involved in a social activity, and the social and
interpersonal roles of the learner cannot be divorced from psychological learning processes”
(Nunan 1990: 80). The term ‘social activity’ is quite broad but this may be, for example, some
role-play or dialogue, which usually requires some interaction among learners. Despite this
fact, this role cannot be realized in frontal teaching, since it usually requires group work or
pair work. The last role proposed by Nunan says that: “learners must take responsibility for
their own learning, developing autonomy and skills in learning-how-to-learn” (Nunan 1990:
80), which does not support the idea of teacher-directed and controlled teaching. However,
most of the methodologies are more concerned with the new idea of learner-centred English
language teaching, where roles of the learners are mainly far away from the roles of learners
in classical frontal teaching, rather than those roles implied in frontal teaching. It may be
interesting to take this from the reversed perspective, so there will not be mentioned which
roles do learners imply in learner-centred procedures, but which roles cannot be implied
during frontal teaching. Hedge points out that the roles that cannot be adopted by learners
during frontal teaching are these: researchers of their needs, content negotiators, learners
monitoring the progress of the course, explorers, experimentators, planners, initiators,
organisers of their own work, learners questioning, clarifying, suggesting, and commenting
(Hedge 2000: 35-36). As it may be clearly seen the roles of learners in frontal teaching are
quite restricted and cannot be much varied.
4. 3. Roles of learning materials
Roles of teachers and learners closely relate to the roles of learning materials,
especially textbook materials. Hedge suggests that: “Any textbook is based on assumptions
about learning, and the design of its activities implies certain roles for teachers and learners
and assumes certain dispositions towards learning styles” (Hedge 2000: 36). Allwright
assumes that the use of textbooks leads to the emphasis on teaching process rather than
learning process which may cause the overload of teacher’s intentions and less involvement
of the learner (Allwright 1981 in Harmer 2001: 304). It may be said that textbooks may
‘push’ the teacher into some particular role or guide the choice of organisational forms.
Littlejohn proposes that the inappropriate use of textbooks “impose learning styles and
content on classes and teachers alike appearing to be faits accomplis over which they can
have little control” (Littlejohn 1998: 205 in Harmer 2001: 304). Harmer suggests that when
there is a course book based on Presentation, Practice, and Production as the main
methodological procedure, which has been previously described in chapter 2.3.2, the teachers
and learners follow the strict format of the lessons by which they both may become demotivated (Harmer 2000: 304). In case of Presentation, Practice, and Production, the use of
frontal teaching is quite frequent, mainly with presentation and also practice activities. As a
result these course books are mainly based on frontal teaching since the methodology of
Presentation, Practise, and Production supports the use of frontal teaching, though some of the
organisational forms, usually in production activities, may occur. The role of teaching
materials is very important, since it is closely related to the roles of teachers and learners and
influences the choice of learning and teaching procedures.
5. Classroom interaction
This chapter focuses on different interaction patterns within the classroom and it also
deals with the time devoted to the teacher and learners during the teaching and learning
process. Richards and Lockhart state that language learning is full of interactions, either
between the teacher and the learners, and also interaction between learners themselves
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 138). Ann Malamah-Thomas in her book Classroom Interaction
assumes that: “It is the interaction of the classroom,..., which mediates between teaching and
learning” (Malamah-Thomas 1987: 1). Therefore, it is important to mention it in this thesis.
Furthermore it is closely connected with organisational forms, since they support different
kinds of interaction.
Mallamah-Thomas distinguishes between classroom interaction and classroom
transaction. Where classroom transaction is the communication of information wholly
controlled by the teacher, or by the textbook writer, the owner of the information. The
information is, for example, about grammar, about the use of language, about linguistic skills,
about the speakers and language they adhere to. Whereas, classroom interaction establishes
the rapport within the classroom and a sense of community, and supports the communication
for more personal purposes (Mallamah-Thomas 1987:15). This would mean that classroom
transaction is mainly used when some information is transmitted, mainly by the teacher with
the possible use of frontal teaching. Whereas, classroom interaction needs some
communication between participants either by the teacher to learners or among learners
themselves.
Furthermore, Mallamah-Thomas describes the verbal and pedagogical interaction. The
main distinction between these two interactions is that in verbal communication, there are
usually two undefined speakers, addresser and addressee, who continually exchange the
information and their roles usually change from one to another (Mallamah-Thomas 1987: 37).
While pedagogic interaction or communication is classified into six different interactions:
1
2
3
4
5
6
teacher
teacher
teacher
student
student
student
whole class
group of students
individual student
teacher
student
group of students
(Mallamah-Thomas 1987: 15)
Pedagogic interaction, as it may be seen in the division, is connected with learning and
teaching, therefore, the classroom interaction has a specific pedagogic purpose. MallamahThomas adds that: “The teacher is in command of a body of knowledge and of skills that he or
she is required to transmit to the learners. In the language classroom, the teacher knows the
language; the learners do not” (Mallamah-Thomas 1987: 14). Mallamah-Thomas further
suggests that the classroom situation needs to be organised for the learning purposes. She
adds that: “Much classroom communication therefore centres on organisation and
administration....” (Mallamah-Thomas 1987: 15). That is why it is important to mention
classroom interaction which interrelates to organisational forms within the language
classroom.
It must be said that classroom interaction is not only about organisation, but also about
participation of the teacher and learners. Ur classifies interaction patterns according to a
different level of participation of the teacher and the learners. The participation is ordered
from the most teacher-dominated to the most learner active, using the following code:
TT = Teacher very active, students only receptive
T = Teacher active, students mainly receptive
TS = Teacher and students fairly equally active
S = Students active, teacher mainly receptive
SS = Students very active, teacher only receptive
(Ur 1996:227)
If we want to label the participation according to organisational forms, particularly to frontal
teaching, it may be said that the participation of the teacher in frontal teaching is dominant
and the learners are less active as they act more like receivers of the information, or
participate on the same level as the teacher, for example, by answering his or her questions.
This means that, according to Ur TT, T, TS are levels of participation which occur during
frontal teaching. The rest of the examples of participation given by Ur, such as S, SS is only
possible in different organisational forms, such as pair work or group work, since they require
active participation of the learners which is not much possible during frontal teaching.
The important part of the interaction within the classroom is the question of the control
the teacher may have over the learners during the lesson. Byrne suggests different kinds of
interaction according to the teacher’s control over the class. There are six different kinds of
classroom interaction described by Byrne (Byrne 1987: 4). The first one is connected with
frontal teaching, since the teacher usually gives words or sentences and wants the learners to
repeat them. By this action, teacher takes the control over the class and learners do not have to
‘think’ at the same time, because they are only repeating the given words. The second kind of
interaction described by Byrne is also happening during the whole class work, but the teacher
is trying to ‘make the learners think’. They might be asked to form some sentences or
questions, but still the control over the content and accuracy is quite high (Byrne 1987: 4).
The third situation moves away from frontal teaching and concentrates more on learners’
individual practice, which he or she does by pairing the learners, but still the control is ‘failsafe’ by giving them a model (Byrne 1987: 4-5). The fourth kind of interaction is based on the
learners’ own work, since they are asked to do some activity, usually a real-life activity where
the teacher first goes over the possible answers with the learners, but they are not further
controlled during their own work (Byrne 1987: 5). The fifth case gets back to frontal teaching
again. But, here, the teacher behaves more like one of the learners by giving them ideas and
trying to get them speak, consequently, the teacher might do some part of the speaking in
order to encourage them to speak. This is usually the example of a class discussion. As a
result, the control of the class might seem a bit strange, though, it is not always vital to correct
one’s opinions (Byrne 1987: 5). The sixth and the last kind of interaction is done in groups.
Although, the teacher has no control over the learners, he hopes them to produce as much as
they know. The role of the teacher in this situation is to observe and monitor learners’ work
(Byrne 1987: 5-6). Byrne concludes her ideas by summarizing the important points connected
with different classroom interaction and its choice. One of them is the use of organisational
forms, the next one is teacher’s control, and, finally, it is the question of a goal, which may be
based either on accuracy or fluency. It may be seen, that the use of frontal teaching and
different organisational forms is also connected with the activities that require teacher’s
control, especially the accuracy activities (see chapter 2.3.2) where the correction of mistakes
and errors is necessary.
5. 1. Teacher-learner/learners interaction
Teacher-learner/learners interaction is a characteristic interaction particularly for
frontal teaching. However, teacher-learner interaction may also occur during the individual
work. Richards and Lockhart classify some patterns of teacher-learner interaction during the
frontal teaching, describing verbal exchanges according to Brown’s classification:
TL
TQ
Teacher lectures - describes, explains, narrates, directs
Teacher questions about content or procedure, which pupils are intended
to answer.
TR
Teacher responds - accepts feelings of the class; describes past feelings
in a non-threatening way.
Praises, encourages, jokes with pupils.
Accepts or uses pupils’ ideas. Builds upon pupil responses. Uses mild
criticism such as “no, not quite.”
(Brown 1975: 67 in Richards, Lockhart 1996: 147)
As it is shown, the most teacher-learner/learners interaction is done by lecturing, where
teacher explains, gives instructions, or does some classroom talk intended to reflect the
learners. Then, the teacher responds by reacting on learners’ actions, and, finally, teacher asks
different kinds of questions which will be further analysed in chapter 4.3.1.
Of course, there is not only teacher-learner interaction during frontal teaching, but also
learner-teacher interaction, which is described by Brown in Richards and Lockhart:
PR
PV
Pupils respond directly and predictably to teacher questions and
directions.
Pupils volunteer information, comments, or questions.
(Brown 1975: 67 in Richards, Lockhart 1996: 147)
It is obvious that learners must respond to the teacher or answer his questions, and they may
also interact with the teacher by providing some information, comments or asking questions.
5. 2. Learner-learner interaction
The interaction among learners in frontal teaching is minimal; however, there might be
some interaction between the learners. Byrne remarks that during frontal teaching, the
interaction between the learners “is often called ‘open pairs’. It is a useful technique for
dialogue repetition, question and answer work and many kinds of controlled drill” (Byrne
1987:15).
5. 2. 1. Maximizing learner’s interaction in frontal teaching
This chapter focuses on learners’ interaction and furthermore their participation in
frontal teaching and how it can be maximized. Scrivener points out some useful tips how to
maximize learners’ interaction, which may be used during frontal teaching, either to decrease
the teacher talk and increase the participation and interaction of the learners.
Scrivener assumes that, to achieve it, the teacher should at first establish a positive and
relaxed classroom environment, since when there is a positive rapport either among the
learners, and among the teacher and the learners, it may increase the interaction in the
classroom. He suggests that the teacher should minimize giving explanations and, instead, ask
questions, especially open-ended questions (see chapter 4.3.1.). Scrivener says that the teacher
should allow learners more time for them to think and speak without interrupting them. The
teacher should also allow learners opportunities to talk, replace unnecessary teacher talk by
gestures, and let the learners finish their ideas and sentences. Furthermore, the setting of the
classroom may also influence the learner’s interaction. The seating may be changed so that
the learners can “see each other and talk to each other”, furthermore, the typical frontal
position of the teacher may be changed so that the teacher stops to be central to the class, but
the whole class becomes to be the focus. Scrivener says that to encourage learners’ interaction
in frontal teaching, the learners should also interact with each other not only with the teacher.
He adds that the teacher should “get students to ask questions, give explanations, etc. to each
other rather than always to you” (Scrivener 1998: 15).
5. 3. Teacher talking time
During frontal teaching and not only, the teacher does a lot of talking in the classroom.
Moon says that teachers are often criticized for that, because they are not offering learners
many opportunities to talk. She further suggests that the purposes for their talk must be
considered, since, through the teacher’s talk, the learners learn (Moon 2000: 60). Richards
and Lockhart claim that: “...effective teacher talk may provide essential support to facilitate
both language comprehension and learner production” (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 184).
Krashen proposes that: “...this is how teachers provide learners with ‘comprehensible input’
(input which is finely tuned to the learner’s level of comprehension), which he sees as ‘the
essential ingredient for second language acquisition” (Krashen in Richards, Lockhart 1996:
184). Harmer adds that the teacher is the one who can offer learners language comprehensible
to them, since he is familiar with their level of knowledge and is able to use the appropriate
language that the learners will understand, which could not be offered by the outside world
(Harmer 2001: 66). However, Harmer proposes that it is necessary:
...to be aware of how much we ourselves are speaking. If we talk all the time,
however ‘comprehensible’ our language is, the students are denied their own
chance to practise production, or get exposure through other means (from
reading or listening to tapes, for example). They may also become bored by
listening to the teacher all the time. (Harmer 2001: 66)
Moon points out the purposes of teacher talk in the classroom, such as giving
instructions, controlling, providing feedback, praising, asking for information, giving
information, providing examples of the target language, giving models of procedures or
strategies, checking or testing learners’ understanding, joking, maintaining a good atmosphere
(Moon 2000: 61). Other purposes of teacher talk are foreshadowed by Nunan and Lamb.
These are error correction and feedback, teacher’s questions and the use of the first language
(Nunan, Lamb 1996: 60). Some of the teacher talk is usual when working in frontal teaching
organisational form, which is for example giving instructions, controlling, teacher questions,
sometimes even error correction and feedback.
Mallamah-Thomas divides teacher talk according to its influence on the learners.
Among the kinds of teacher talk with indirect influence proposed by Mallamah-Thomas
belong dealing with learners’ feelings, praising and encouraging learners, joking, using
learners’ ideas such as “clarifying, using, interpreting, summarizing the ideas of students”
(Mallamah-Thomas 1987: 23-24), repeating learner response verbatim (especially during
drills), asking questions (either with the expected answer, cultural questions or personal
questions). Subsequently, among the kinds of teacher talk with direct influence belong giving
information, correcting, discussing culture and people of the target language, modelling,
helping learners to orientate in the task, telling learners about self, routine work (everyday
instructions), giving directions, drills, and criticizing (either the behaviour of the learners or
their responses) (Mallamah-Thomas 1987: 24). All the proposed kinds of teacher talk occur
during frontal teaching, though some of them may occur during group work or pair work.
5. 3. 1. Questioning
Most of the time, during frontal teaching, is taken up by teacher questioning. Nunan
and Lamb remark that “questions fulfil numerous functions in the classroom” (Nunan, Lamb
1996: 80). Teachers may use questions in order to “elicit information, to check understanding,
and also to control behaviour” (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 80). Richards and Lockhart point out
several reasons why questions are used so commonly:
•
•
•
•
•
They stimulate and maintain students’ interest.
They encourage students to think and focus on the content of the lesson.
They enable a teacher to clarify what a student has said.
They enable a teacher to elicit particular structures or vocabulary items.
They enable teachers to check students’ understanding.
• They encourage student participation in a lesson.
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 185)
Ur adds some more reasons for questioning such as:
• To find out something from the learners (facts, ideas, opinions).
• To direct attention to the topic being learned.
• To inform the class via the answers of the stronger learners rather than
through the teacher’s input.
• To encourage self-expression
• To communicate to learners that the teacher is genuinely interested in what they
think.
(Ur 1996: 229)
Richards and Lockhart also claim that teacher’s questions may be classified in many
different ways. However, Richards and Lockhart divide questions into three kinds “procedural, convergent, and divergent” (Richards and Lockhart 1996: 186). Procedural
questions are questions about classroom management, procedures and routines. Richards and
Lockhart provides some examples of such questions:
Did everyone bring their homework?
Do you all understand what I want you to do?
How much more time do you need?
Can you all read what I’ve written on the blackboard?
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 186)
According to Richards and Lockhart, convergent questions usually expect short answers
which focus on the central topic. These questions do not need higher level of learners’
thinking, since the answer is usually “yes” or “no”. Richards and Lockhart assume that
teachers often ask convergent questions in a quick sequence. Furthermore, it “helps to
develop aural skills and vocabulary and to encourage whole-class participation before moving
on to some other teaching technique” (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 186).
On the other hand, divergent questions require diverse learners’ responses and
encourage higher-level thinking. By divergent questions, teachers expect learners to provide
their own information.
Nunan and Lamb as well as Ur describe different types of questions in a more general
manner. They divide questions into closed-ended and open-ended. Ur suggests that the
difference between open and closed questions is that open questions have many possible
answers, whereas closed questions support only one right answer (Ur 1996: 229). Nunan and
Lamb remark that open-ended and closed-ended questions are different in their nature and
differ with various kinds of activities, the answers of learners and their language used
according to each type of a question (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 84).
Although, questions play an important role in the teaching/learning process, they have
been of the interest of many specialists on didactics, since there are many aspects that have to
be taken in account. Nunan and Lamb claim that some of the specialists on didactics such as,
for example, Good and Brophy has been arguing about the typical question-answer “PingPong” where the teacher asks question, learners respond, the teacher evaluates this respond
and asks another question (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 81). Ur describes that as “IRF” (Initiation Response - Feedback), which is usually used in frontal teaching. Ur believes that this type of
questions are used most often during the teaching process in the classroom, though it is not
always a suitable pattern for achieving the aim of the activity, since it does not support
communicative aims and there is often one right answer which the teacher already knows (Ur
1996: 228, 237). That is why Nunan and Lamb concentrate on the aspects connected with
questioning so that it is effective.
The important aspect connected with teacher questioning is a ‘wait time’, which is not
often as long as it should be. Nunan and Lamb assume that the “wait time” is important for
the learners “to have sufficient time to think about questions before being required to answer
them” (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 84-85). Many specialists on didactics argue about the length of
the “wait time”, since, sometimes it is important to prolong the time, especially with “highstructure situations”, but on the other hand, it may sometimes break the dynamics of the
classroom interaction (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 87). However, it is important to consider this
aspect in order not to distract the pace of the classroom dynamics.
The next important aspect of teacher questioning to be considered is the distribution of
the questions among the learners so that they all have the chance to participate. Nunan and
Lamb suggest that this is often connected with the teacher’s action zone (which will further be
described in the following chapter) where teachers tend to call some learners more often and
may ‘neglect’ those that are not in his action zone (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 87-88).
Elicitation is also a common aspect of teacher questioning that have to be taken in
account. “Elicitation methods are designed to extract from students information that might
otherwise have been provided by the teacher” (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 93). Although, the teacher
wants to be sure that learners know the rule, the context can be disturbed and the
communicative function of the questions and answers may be totally distracted.
Ur provides some criteria for effective questioning, such as clarity of the question,
“learning value” (whether it evokes learners thinking and responses related to the topic or if it
is time-filling question etc.), learners’ interest, availability, extension, teacher reactions (they
should not be afraid of the teacher’s negative reactions) (Ur 1996: 230).
Questions play a crucial role in frontal teaching and that is why they should not be
underestimated and all the criteria and aspects of effective questioning should be taken in
account.
5. 3. 2. Teacher’s action zone
When teaching the whole class, even the large one, it is sometimes difficult for the
teacher to concentrate on all the learners in the classroom. Despite the teacher’s best
intentions he often tends to interact with some learners more often than others, which is
sometimes quite difficult to avoid. Richards and Lockhart claim that this situation creates so
called teacher’s action zone, which may be indicated by:
those students with whom the teacher regularly enters into eye contact;
those students to whom the teacher addresses questions; and
those students who are nominated to take an active part in the lesson.
(Richards, Lockhart 1996: 139)
These learners occur in teacher’s action zone and usually participate more often than learners
outside the action zone. Richards and Lockhart propose that: “this zone includes the middle
front row seats and the seats up the middle aisle” (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 139). Richards
and Lockhart further remark that not only these places indicate the teacher’s action zone,
since every teacher may have his or her personal action zones, such as, for example, the right
hand side, girls rather than boys, or brighter learners. In spite of that, during frontal teaching
and choral repetitions, all learners may interact but when asking questions to individual
learners only a half of them participate.
However, this is very difficult to avoid and, therefore, the learners outside the action
zone are in disadvantage, and their interaction might be minimal.
5. 4. Student talking time
Student talking time is obviously the time devoted to the learners to talk. Even though
there is not much student talk in frontal teaching, since this has not necessarily been true, it is
important to mention it. However, there is not much written on student talking time, and thus
it is quite difficult to analyse the situations when the learners are supposed to talk and when
not, as it is in case of teacher talk. Most of the specialists on didactics agreed on that the
learners should be given as many opportunities to talk as possible. However, Harmer
concludes that: “on the whole we want to see more STT than TTT, since, ..., You don’t need
the language practice, they do” (Harmer 2001: 66).
Scrivener suggests that the best way how to increase student speaking time is to put
them in pairs and groups (Scrivener 1998: 14).
6. Criteria for assessment of the use of frontal teaching activities
For the purposes of the practical part, it is necessary to state the criteria for assessment
of the use frontal teaching activities. The following research concentrates on the effectivity of
use of frontal teaching activities; therefore, it is important to assess them according to the
following criteria.
Frontal teaching is used with:
- accuracy-based activities requiring the error correction
- activities focusing on form
- activities that require control over their content: drills, question-answer activities,
doing/checking textbook activities, translations and choral repetitions
-
activities where the teacher talk is necessary: giving instructions, controlling,
providing feedback, praising, asking for information, giving information, providing
examples of the target language, giving models of procedures or strategies, checking
or testing learners’ understanding, joking, maintaining a good atmosphere (Moon
2000: 61)
Frontal teaching is usually not used with:
- activities focusing on fluency
- activities focusing on meaning
- activities with communicative aims: group discussions, exchanging the information,
opinions, problem solving, making arrangements or decisions with others, role-plays,
dialogues etc. (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 29) and communicative games
7. Practical part
The practical part concentrates on frontal teaching and its representation in learning
and teaching process. The practical part consists of two researches. The first one concentrates
on proportional representation of frontal teaching and different organisational forms, such as
individual work, pair work and group work. The second section of practical part concentrates
on the use of frontal teaching with different types of activities and its typical features and the
functionality of frontal teaching with these activities. Furthermore, it concentrates on the aim
of English language teaching in relation to the effectiveness of frontal teaching. The main aim
of the practical research is to use criteria described in the theoretical part and results of the
research to support these hypotheses:
Frontal teaching is so far more used organisational form in the teaching and learning
process than pair work and group work.
The use of frontal teaching with the observed activities functions according to
the
criteria described in the theoretical part and fulfils the aim of English language
teaching.
The main focus of the first research is to find out the proportional representation of
frontal teaching and different organisational forms. The question of the quantitative research
is: ‘Is frontal teaching the most frequently used organisational form in the teaching and
learning process than pair work and group work?’ This topic has been chosen in order to find
out whether frontal teaching is still the most preferred organisational form used in the lessons,
even though the Communicative approach has been widely accepted all over the world
(Richards, Rodgers 1993: 157).
The main focus of the second research concentrates on the use of frontal teaching with
different types of activities and the functionality of frontal teaching with these types of
activities, furthermore it concentrates on main aspects of frontal teaching with these types of
activities, such as the length of teacher talking time, student talking time, interaction patterns
and roles of the teacher, which will be analysed according to the theoretical part. The main
questions of this research is: ‘Is frontal teaching effective with the observed activities and
what are the main aspects of frontal teaching with these activities?’, ‘Is the use of frontal
teaching effective in relation to the aim of English language teaching?’ Although, it is
difficult to find out whether the use of frontal teaching is effective, however, this will be
analysed according to the criteria described in the theoretical part.
The data for analysis were collected by the structured observation, which includes
description of the activities, especially what the teacher and learners do during these activities,
the use of organisational forms and time devoted to each organisational form, the length of
teacher talking time and student talking time and interaction patterns (appendix 1). I observed
twenty-six lessons of one teacher. The observations were held during February and March. I
observed various English lessons of different classes, such as sixth graders, seventh graders,
eight graders and ninth graders. It is important to mention that these were classes with not
more than twelve learners.
Since, the observations were done in the classes of one teacher, it was necessary to
interview the teacher in order to find out what are her assumptions about teaching and
learning, and, especially, what organisational forms and for what purposes the teacher usually
uses them.
The six observation sheets in the appendix were chosen in order to show the most
frequently used activities that will be analysed in the second research
.
7. 1. Proportional representation of frontal teaching and different organisational
forms
The aim of this research was to find out what is the proportional representation of
frontal teaching and different organisational forms in English classes. This research has been
done in order to find out whether the frontal teaching is the most used and preferred
organisational form in teaching and learning process. The Communicative approach has been
discussed and described all over the world, and the use of frontal teaching is slowly moving
behind the two organisational forms such as pair work and group work. Those two forms are,
without any discussions, the best organisational forms to support communication among the
learners. But still, even though communication among the learners is stressed by many
specialists on didactics, frontal teaching is still the most used organisational form (Richards,
Lockhart 1996: 147), as it can also be seen in the following research. The results of this
research should support these hypotheses:
Frontal teaching is so far more used organisational form in the teaching and learning
process than pair work and group work.
During the observations, the attention was paid to the time devoted to each
organisational form. This was done by measuring the length of each organisational form used
in the observed lessons. Twenty-six lessons were observed in order to find out the results of
this research. The time is noted down in minutes. The final amount of time devoted to the
organisational forms together was one thousand one hundred and seventy-three minutes. The
graph below displays the amount of time in minutes devoted to each of the organisational
forms:
Proportional representation of frontal teaching
and different organisational forms
26 lessons/1173 min.
123
17
Frontal teaching - 75%
166
Pair work - 14%
Individual work - 10%
Group work - 1%
867
As it can be seen, most of the time was devoted to frontal teaching, which is eight hundred
and sixty-seven minutes which makes seventy-five percent of the total observed time. The
second is pair work, which has one hundred and sixty-six minutes, which is much less than in
case of frontal teaching, it makes fourteen percent. The third in the rank is individual work
which is represented by one hundred and twenty-three minutes, which makes ten percent, and
the last organisational form observed is group work, which has only seventeen minutes and
one percent from the whole amount of one thousand one hundred and seventy-three minutes.
If this is transformed into 45-minutes lessons, frontal teaching would take about nineteen
lessons, pair work would take about three and a half lessons, individual work would take two
and a half lessons and group work would not take even a lesson out of the twenty-six
observed lessons. See the chart below:
Organisational
form
Frontal
teaching
Pair work
Individual
work
Group work
Time in
minutes
867
Lessons
Percentage
19
75%
166
123
3,5
2,5
14%
10%
17
0,4
1%
This clearly shows that the teacher prefers frontal teaching from other organisational
forms which support the above stated hypothesis. It may also support the opinions of Harmer,
Richards and Lockhart who claim that frontal teaching is still the most used and preferred
organisational form (Harmer 2001: 114), (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 147). To find out the
reliable results of the research that would support the statement that frontal teaching is
preferred and most used organisational form, the observations of teachers all around the world
would have to be done.
7. 2.
Analyses of the observation sheets
For the researches, the structured observation was used. The main part of the
observation sheets concentrates on the description of the activity. The description of the
activity is divided into two parts in order to describe the actions of the teacher and, separately,
actions of the learners. One of the main parts was the concentration on the choice of
organisational forms and the time devoted to each of them. The next parts of the observation
sheets are student talking time and teacher talking time, where there was written the time of
the teacher’s talk and students’ talk. The next part is interaction patterns which were meant to
analyse the interaction during each organisational form (appendix 1). All these aspects have
been chosen in order to define the activities according to the criteria of use of frontal teaching
and aspects connected with it.
Before the research, it may be interesting to mention which organisational forms are
used with different kinds of activities. There were different kinds of activities observed in the
lessons. At first, let’s state which activities were used during the individual work. These were:
- completing tasks in the textbook: grammar exercises, vocabulary exercises, reading
comprehension tasks
- reading aloud with the headphones
- Bingo
- writing tasks - tests, forming questions for the partner
- drawing out the unknown words from the text
Next, there are activities done in pairs, which are:
- comparisons
- dialogues: question-answer, reading dialogues in pairs, making dialogues according to
the example, practising of the dialogues
- role-play
- communicative activities
- preparations for the subsequent activities done in frontal teaching
In case of group work, these are activities where learners organise the activity like building a
town from boxes on the carpet and games that are based on teams, such as:
- cooperative work when organising the activity
- game - Word Scramble
In the following lines, the attention is paid to the activities used in frontal teaching,
which is the focus of the following research. It concentrates on the use of frontal teaching
with different types of activities and the functionality of frontal teaching with these types of
activities. Furthermore, it concentrates on the effectiveness of use of frontal teaching
according to the aim of English language teaching. This will be analysed with the support of
the theoretical background described in the theoretical part of this thesis. The aim of the
research should support this hypothesis:
The use of frontal teaching with the observed activities functions according to
the
criteria described in the theoretical part and fulfils the aim of English language
teaching.
The observed activities are divided into categories, which will be further analysed according
to the criteria described in the theoretical part. Among the activities observed in the lessons
belong:
- instructions
- explanations
- organising the lesson
- providing feedback
- doing/checking textbook exercises
- question-answer activities
- jokes, riddles, tongue twisters and other warm-up activities
- games
- songs
- translations
- choral repetitions
- drills
- discussions
- listening
- reading
- providing information and culture facts
In the following lines, each category will be analysed and provided by the examples from the
observation sheets. The activities will be analysed from various aspects connected with
frontal teaching and organisational forms. Some of the aspects may be observed, such as
description of the activities with the actions of the teacher, the actions of the learner, the
length of teacher talking time, the length of learner talking time, and interaction patterns.
More of the aspects will be analysed from the descriptions of the activity, which will be more
or less deduction, since it is sometimes difficult to observe the roles of the teacher and roles of
the learners.
The first is category is instructions. In this teacher’s activity, teacher gives instructions
for the learners’ work, which can only be done in frontal teaching, since if the teacher would
have to provide each learner or group or pair with instructions, this would be time consuming
as Harmer proposes (Harmer 2001: 114). When the teacher gave instructions, the learners
were silent and followed what the teacher said, so there was no learner talk observed only
when the teacher asked if the instructions are clear and learners replied. As a result, the
interaction patterns are mainly teacher (T) to learners (Ls), occasionally T-L. The role of the
teacher when giving instructions is controller as stated in chapter 2.3.2., and organiser, since
he tells the learners how they are going to do the activity and makes decisions about the
organisational forms (Harmer 2001: 58). In this case, the use of frontal teaching is vital, since
it is the best way how to organise the activity and prepares learners for the following stage of
an activity, which is usually done in frontal teaching, since the teacher is the one who directs
the lesson. The use of frontal teaching when giving instructions is off hand, since only the
teacher was familiar with what was going to be done during the lesson. Furthermore, it
coincides with the criteria of the use of frontal teaching.
The following category is explanations. This is again the activity of the teacher, since
he provides learners with the explanations of grammar (appendix 3), vocabulary and
pronunciation (appendix 5). This is similar as in case of instructions, where the teacher
explains it to the whole-class, which is not as time consuming as individual explanations.
Again, there was no learner talking time during the explanations. The only action of the
learners was to make notes and listen to what the teacher says. The interaction patterns were
T-Ls because the teacher provided the learners with the units they were not familiar with and
where their participation was not acceptable. According to Brown’s classification of T-L
interaction (chapter 4.1.), the teacher lectures, which means that he, for example, gives
explanations (Brown 1975: 67 in Richards, Lockhart 1996: 147). According to Ur’s code of
participation (chapter 4), it is TT, which means that the teacher is dominant and very active
and learners are only receptive (Ur 1996: 227). The teacher acted as a controller and
transmitted the knowledge to the learners. If the phases of activities are taken in account, this
would fall in the ‘run’ phase (Scrivener 1994), where the choice of organisational forms
depends on the aim of the activity. In the case of explanations, the aim was to provide learners
with the necessary information about the new target language (in the observed explanations, it
was grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation). Explanations belong to the category of
presentation activities where the teacher presents new items, which is usually done in frontal
teaching, where the teacher explains and provides new information concerning the target
language (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 46). As it has been previously discussed in the chapter
concerning types of activities, presentation activities are usually done in frontal teaching and
explanations are one of them, since they prepare learners for the subsequent phase - practise.
It may be said that the use of frontal teaching when giving explanations works, since it
discharges the criteria of the use of frontal teaching described in the theoretical part and
foreshadowed in the few preceding lines.
As the previous two activities are teacher-directed, the next activity is more or less
again up to the teacher. It is organising the lesson. By the organising the lesson, it is meant
that the observed teacher announced what is the plan of the lesson (appendix 3). This may
only be done in frontal teaching, since the teacher is the one to organise the lesson and the
learners did not know the intentions of the teacher. The interaction patterns are therefore TLs. The role of the teacher was organiser, which involved giving learners information about
the lesson and together with it, motivating them. Organising the lesson belong to the lead-in
phase where the teacher organises and motivates learners for the subsequent activities. The
use of frontal teaching is vital to use because only the teacher knows the content of the lesson.
The next activities were doing/checking textbook exercises (appendix 3, 4). It is
necessary to say that the textbook, the observed teacher used in the lessons was Time To Talk
I (the role of the textbooks has been discussed in chapter 3.3.), which is based on
Presentation, Practice and Production, which has been described in chapter 2.3.2. Checking
exercises was either the activity following individual work, where the learners at first filled in
the exercise (grammar, vocabulary, or reading comprehension check), or the learners were
immediately called one by one to say the answers. These tasks were always based on
accuracy, so the immediate correction of the teacher was needed. That was why the teacher
always checked the exercise with the whole class. Byrne further adds that it is often quite time
consuming, so it is better for learners to prepare the answers in advance in pairs and then
check the exercises with the whole class (Byrne 1987: 21). The purposes of teacher talking
time with these activities were to correct the mistakes, ask another learner to correct and to
call the learner to say the answer. Nunan and Lamb propose some of the reasons of teacher’s
talk and one of them is to correct errors and mistakes (Nunan, Lamb 1996: 60). The learner
talking time was intended to start when the learners were asked to say the answer. The
interaction patterns observed during these activities are T-Ls, T-L, and L-T. The role of the
teacher is controlling. If we talk about the types of activities, these activities would belong to
the category of practice, where the learners learn the previously presented items, or revise.
However, doing or checking textbook activities, which were based on accuracy and needed
the immediate error correction, which is usually done in frontal teaching.
The next category of activities observed in the lesson was providing feedback
(appendix 4, 2). The feedback was usually provided by the teacher by asking some questions
about the grammar or immediately after the activity by asking about the main features,
especially after the activity, and where the teacher told the learners how well they have done
in the task or checked their understanding or corrected the main mistakes that appeared during
the task and assessed their performance by giving them marks. To this category also belongs
praising, which was also provided by the teacher. The interaction patterns observed were
usually T-Ls, T-L, L-T, and Ls-T. It was usually the teacher herself who assessed the
learners’ performance. Therefore, the role of the teacher was assessor who provides learners
with feedback, corrects and gives marks. This usually belongs to the close activity when the
task is finished and there is the time to provide the feedback (chapter 2.3.3.). The teacher
talking time was maximized since the teacher assessed the learners, but the learners
themselves, if asked, answered teacher’s questions. Such feedback is usually provided by the
teacher in whole-class setting, as it was done in the observed lessons.
The following category of observed activities is question-answer activities. This was
usually done at the beginning of the lesson to broach the topic (appendix 5) or when asking
procedural questions (appendix 2). This is a typical activity done in frontal teaching. The
interaction patterns are T-Ls, T-L, L-T, and Ls-T. The teacher asked questions almost every
lesson, mostly at the beginning of the lesson or after the tasks. The teacher asked different
types of the questions, it depended on the activity or on the phase of the activity. She usually
asked procedural questions at the beginning of the lesson, convergent and divergent questions
before or during some topical activities. The teacher talking time in this case was usually as
long as learner talking time. Although, the teacher sometimes had to help learners with their
answers, the wait time devoted to the learners’ answers was quite long. The role of the teacher
was controlling, although the focus was on fluency, rather than accuracy, but still, it required
some control of the teacher. Frontal teaching with question-answer activities was used in
order to elicit information from the learners and to find out something about them. In the case
of eliciting information from the learners or finding something out about them is usually done
in frontal teaching, but these kinds of activities do not usually support the communicative
aims. In the case of the observed activities, the teacher usually asked questions to find out
something about the learners or to check their knowledge, so the use of frontal teaching was
one of the ways how to do this.
The following category is a mixed category of warm-up activities. Among the
observed warm-up activities belongs joke, tongue twister, or riddles. All these warm-up
activities were always done in frontal teaching. In case of jokes, the teacher used joke once
during the all observed lessons and simply told the joke and the learners listened. In case of
tongue twisters, the teacher wrote the tongue twister on the board and asked the whole class to
read it. Then she called one learner after another to try to say it as quickly as possible. In case
of riddles, the teacher asked questions and the learners guessed. All these activities have
similar features, such as the role of the teacher, which was usually controlling, since all the
activities were under the teacher’s control. Except the jokes, where the interaction was T-Ls,
the interaction in the two other activities was T-Ls, T-L, Ls-T, and L-T. The teacher talking
time was shorter than learner talking time. In this case it is very difficult to analyse whether
the use of frontal teaching is off hand. In case of jokes, the use of frontal teaching is possible
when the teacher wants to encourage the learners at the beginning of the lesson. Frontal
teaching used with riddles may also be off hand because the teacher provides the learners with
the clues and they guess, which requires teacher’s control. To use frontal teaching with tongue
twisters may be discussed, but in the case of this observed activity, the aim was to practice
learners’ pronunciation abilities, where the teacher control was there to help learners with the
pronunciation. The use of frontal teaching with these activities was good for the learners to
cooperate as a class in solving the riddles and to have fun during the tongue twister. The aim
of the activities was to make the atmosphere in the class relaxed, which worked well.
Games are quite a broad category, but again the features are similar. The teacher used
games like Gallows (appendix 4), Noughts and Crosses and Suitcase (appendix 7). The clues
or words were always provided by the teacher. In case of Gallows, the teacher provided the
learners with the length of the word and asked the learners to guess. The game Noughts and
Crosses is based on the similar principle as Suitcase, where the teacher provides learners with
clues and they must guess the word. As Byrne proposes (chapter 2.3.2.), guessing games
belong to the language games done in frontal teaching, since they are a very good alternative
to various drills based on accuracy (Byrne 1987: 21). The role of the teacher is a controller,
who was in charge of the procedures and knew the correct answers. The teacher talking time
was longer than the talk of the learners, since the teacher gave clues and learners only guessed
by shouting or writing down the words. The interaction was T-Ls, L-T because the teacher
asked questions to the whole class and the learner who knew had the opportunity to guess.
These games were based on accuracy and required teacher’s control, so the use of frontal
teaching was used effectively though the participation of ‘slower’ learners was minimal.
Songs belong to the separate category of activities. The teacher used songs again to
encourage the classroom atmosphere and to activate the learners. If the teacher used the tape
recorder, she usually only announced what song are the learners going to sing or when the
class sang without the tape recorder, the teacher asked what the learners want to sing today.
That means that the decision was sometimes on the teacher and sometimes on the learners.
The role of the teacher was the organiser, since she only told them that they are going to sing
a song, both the teacher and the learners at first agreed on the song and sang. The teacher then
praised the learners or asked whether they like the song. The songs were not new for the
learners. The interaction patterns used during songs were T-Ls, Ls-T. The teacher talking time
was minimal and used for the purposes of organising the activity, and most of the talking (or
maybe better singing) was done by the learners. The teacher used songs either at the
beginning of the lesson or at the end, when she saw that the learners are tired or nervous.
Since singing is a choral activity, it is usually done in frontal teaching. Additionally, the aim
was to encourage learners and maintain a good classroom atmosphere, which was always
achieved.
Before some activity that required the knowledge of vocabulary, the teacher used
translations (appendix 4). By the term translations is meant that the teacher said the word in
Czech and the learners translated it. This was a very quick way of how to practice vocabulary,
which saved time and the class might have moved to the next activity. With these activities,
the teacher used Czech in order to make the activity as quick as possible. The role of the
teacher was that of a controller. This activity, controlled and directed by the teacher, was
based on accuracy so the teacher provided feedback right on the spot. The interaction was TLs, T-L, Ls-T, and L-T, where the teacher gave the word and the learners or the whole-class
translated it. The teacher talking time was as long as the learner talking time, since it was
word-word exchange. The use of frontal teaching may be discussed, since the same may be
done in pairs where one learner gives the word in Czech and another translates and vice versa.
The aim of this activity is probably that the learners will practice and revise vocabulary
needed in the following task, which was finally achieved, so the use of frontal teaching was
not useless.
Choral repetition is a typical activity done in frontal teaching. This was done by
having learners to repeat the words in order to master the pronunciation of the words
(appendix 6). In this case, the teacher stands as a good language model who provides the
learners with the correct pronunciation and difficulties connected with it. The teacher acted as
a controller who is in charge of the activity. The teacher talking time was longer than learner
talking time, since the teacher at first presented the word, usually from the list of the words on
the blackboard, then pronounced the word and the whole-class simply repeated it. As a result,
the interaction patterns were T-Ls, Ls-T. In chapter 2.3.2., Byrne suggests that in case of
choral repetitions practising pronunciation, where the teacher stands a good language model,
the use of frontal teaching is off hand (Byrne 1987: 18).
The following category of the observed activities was drills. Especially, the teacher
used drill for practising colours (appendix 6). He did it by asking questions like: “What colour
is this?” and the learners replied by telling the colour. Therefore, the interaction was T-L, L-T.
It was a controlled drill where the teacher acted as a controller, since the activity was teacherdirected. The teacher talk was restricted to one question many times repeated. The learner
talking time was therefore as long as the teacher talking time since the answer was required in
a full sentence. Byrne proposes that the use of drills when learners need to learn vocabulary is
not useful, since the learners have no choice in what they say (Byrne 1987: 18). Although the
learners did not have many opportunities to talk, this drill was just a revision of acquired
vocabulary, though this drill was used as an addition to the previous activity based on talking
about St. Patrick’s Day. That is why frontal teaching was used, mainly for the purposes of
utilizing the time left at the end of the lesson.
Discussions were also used during the lessons (appendix 7). These were usually
introducing new unit, where the teacher propounded one question and started the discussion.
It cannot be said that it always worked, because it sometimes dissembled into question-answer
work. This was once saved by the teacher calling the learners, so they were at the end ‘forced’
to join in the discussion and then it went well. As it has been said, the teacher sometimes had
to support the learners’ talk by suggesting some ideas so that the discussion proceeded. The
learners reacted on the answers of the others which mean that the discussion was controlled
by the learners with just a little help of the teacher. The teacher controlled the procedure of
the discussion so her role was a controller who does not correct the learners, although she
sometimes repeated the learner’s answer by saying it correctly, but did not directly correct it.
As a result, the activity was mainly based on fluency. The aim from the teacher’s perspective
was to let the learners talk and to find out something about them. The interaction patterns
were T-Ls, T-L, L-T, and L-L. Byrne says that exchange of opinions of the learners is an ideal
situation of discussions done in frontal teaching (Byrne 1987: 59).
However, in the observed lessons occurred also much of the listening, though it was
mostly listening to the introductory text, which was the pre-phase for some comprehension
checks done in the textbook (appendix 5). The whole-class was listening to the tape and then
did the exercises. It is difficult to analyse the main aspects of this activity, since there is no
activity of the learners and the only activity of the teacher was to turn on the tape recorder. All
the actions that followed, where described in this chapter - exercises.
The least but not last category of activities is reading. The teacher usually asked the
learners to read the text so that the learners had a chance to practise their pronunciation. The
teacher acted as a controller who subsequently corrected the mistakes and assessed the
learners. This was done with the help of the language laboratory, where each learner had
headphones with a microphone and the teacher monitored the pronunciation of some of them
and if previously announced, gave them marks and provided the feedback (appendix 2). The
teacher acted as a monitor, assessor and, of course, controller, who is in charge of the class.
The teacher talking time appeared after the reading when providing learners with feedback,
which has been previously discussed. Reading for the purposes of pronunciation is effective
to be done in frontal teaching, since the teacher has a control over the class, and may
immediately correct the errors and mistakes. It would be different with reading for
understanding, but this did not appear during the observations.
The last category was providing information and culture facts. Since the textbook does
not offer much information about the target culture, the teacher had to provide it herself. She
did it by telling the learners interesting information and the learners were mainly listening and
taking notes (appendix 6). The teacher acted as a provider of the information/resource and
time to time asked questions about the learners’ understanding. The teacher talking time took
the whole length of the activity while the learners were listening. Although this may be done
differently, the teacher’s talk was interesting, and the learners seemed interested in the topic.
Frontal teaching used with providing information is off hand, since the teacher was the one to
be familiar with the facts.
The preceding paragraphs were simply describing and analysing the categories
observed during the lesson. In the following part, the use of frontal teaching with these
activities will be compared to the criteria described in the theoretical part.
At first, let’s summarize the specification of frontal teaching (chapter 2.2) and
compare it with the main features of the observed activities. With the preceding activities,
especially games, jokes, the teacher in frontal teaching organisational form was trying to
engage the atmosphere in the classroom, tried to amuse the learners, which was achieved
(chapter 2.2.). The whole-class was concentrating on the teacher’s talk, which stood as a good
language model, mainly with the activities like choral repetitions and drills. The next
activities that were done in frontal teaching were instructions and explanations, which is not
time consuming, as Harmer proposes (Harmer 2001: 114). The work in frontal teaching
supports the relation between the learners, which may be realised in the activities such as
discussions, where the learners accept or refuse ones opinions and form their roles in the
classroom. Even though the learners may become bored during the long work in frontal
teaching, the teacher may encourage them by playing games or joking, which was also done
in the observed lessons.
The next criterion is the use of frontal teaching in relation to aims, which is described
in chapter 2.3.1. The general aim of language learning is to develop communicative
competence. As suggested in chapter 2.3.1, the use of frontal teaching is effective only when
practising form of the language, but it is not effective when the meaning of the language
needs to be taken in account. The best organisational form to fulfil communicative aims is
group work and pair work. It must be said that during the observations, only one hundred and
eighty-three minutes out of one thousand one hundred and seventy-three minutes were
devoted to the group work and pair work. Furthermore, there were only two communicative
activities observed from the whole amount of twenty-six observed lessons. This statistics
shows that most of the activities do not have the potential to support the development of
communicative competence, since most of the activities were based on form and accuracy
rather than on meaning.
If types of activities are taken in account, the teacher used presentation and production
activities as it is also stated to be the only two possible activities, since the production
activities should be done in other organisational forms. Among the observed presentation
activities belong instructions and explanations, where the teacher is the one who presents,
therefore the use of frontal teaching is off hand. In case of practice activities, the teacher used
activities like drills, choral repetitions, response drills. As Richards and Lockhart state, in
such types of activities the teacher controls the learner’s performance or stands as a model for
their performance (chapter 2.3.2). No production activities were done during frontal teaching,
these were always done in pairs. In case of accuracy or fluency based tasks, the teacher used
mainly accuracy tasks such as controlled drills, exercises and language games, where the
teacher controls and is in charge of the procedure. The only fluency activity done in frontal
teaching was the discussion, which was again controlled by the teacher, but the mistakes and
errors were not immediately corrected. As Byrne suggests, the use of frontal teaching with
these activities is not useless, since they usually require the control of the teacher (chapter
2.3.2.).
The use of frontal teaching is also connected with different phases of activities.
According to Scrivener’s division of activities, foreshadowed in chapter 2.3.3., the teacher
used frontal teaching in lead-in activities, such as questions to introduce a new topic, which is
usually done in frontal teaching, since the teacher knows what the class is going to do or talk
about. In set-up phase, the teacher usually gave instructions, provided examples and organised
the lesson and activities which is in accordance with Scrivener’s description of this phase. In
close phase, the teacher is supposed to provide feedback, assess, provide self-correction of the
learners by asking questions and correct, which was also used during the observed activities,
especially in close phase of the activities.
The next criterion or more specific feature of frontal teaching is the role of the teacher,
which is usually that of a controller, organiser, assessor, resource and observer. The teacher
acted as a controller almost in most of the activities based on accuracy, where the control over
the content of the activity, learners’ actions and mistakes was necessary. The teacher acted
also as an organiser who checked learners’ understanding and provided them with the
organisation of the activities. The teacher as a resource was active when providing learners
with information about the culture of the target language or information concerning the topic.
Learners were mainly passive receivers of the knowledge. Concerning the role of the
textbook, it was based on the Presentation Practice Production, which is described in chapter
3.3., but the teacher usually inserted different activities, so the learners did not become bored.
The participation of the learners was less active as Ur describes, the learners were
mainly receptive or only receptive and the teacher was active, as it was with the explanations
and instructions. Or the learners were on the same level of participation as the teacher, as it
was especially with question-answer activities. The interaction was mainly T-Ls, T-L, L-T,
and Ls-T. Byrne describes the interaction from the point of view of the control the teacher
may have over the class. The teacher had grater control during choral repetitions and drills. It
may be said that the teacher had control over all the observed activities done in frontal
teaching, sometimes she let the learners think, but still controlled their answers. As it can be
seen the interaction is bound to the exchange among the teacher and the learners, since the
control of the content of the activity was necessary. The teacher did not try to maximize the
interaction of the learners, since the amount of the learners in the class was not bigger than
twelve, so all of the learners had opportunities to interact with the teacher.
The next criterion is the purpose of use of teacher talk. The teacher usually talked
when lecturing, questioning, or responding (chapter 2.1.), correcting, assessing and, simply,
providing feedback. There was no unnecessary teacher talk during the observed lessons.
Learners were usually allowed to talk when the teacher asked questions, or sometimes they
had opportunities for comments or questions. The teacher’s questions, as described by
Richards and Lockhart and Ur in chapter 4.3.1. were used to elicit vocabulary items and
structures, to raise the learner’s interest, to find out something about the learners, to direct the
attention to the topic and for learners’ self-expression. These are the most frequent reasons for
teacher’s questions in frontal teaching.
To conclude with, as all the criteria from chapter 6 has been mentioned, the use of
frontal teaching with the observed activities functions. Finally, the aim of English language
teaching and learning cannot be fulfilled since there were only two communicative activities
during the twenty-six observed lessons. The activities used frontally were mostly based on
accuracy not the meaning. The learners were taught and practised the form of the language,
and the meaning and purpose of the use of the language has never been explained to them or
even practised. Although the research supports almost all the criteria from the theoretical part
stated above, the results of the research cannot support the following hypothesis:
The use of frontal teaching with the observed activities functions according to
the
criteria described in the theoretical part and fulfils the aim of English language
teaching.
7.3. Analysis of the interview with the observed teacher
The purpose of the interview of the observed lessons is simple. The observations were
made in the lessons of one teacher, therefore it is necessary to find out something about the
assumptions of the teacher and especially about the use of organisational forms. The
interviewed teacher is a female teacher who has worked in the education for thirty years, she
is kind and friendly, therefore the interview was nice and she answered all the questions with
enthusiasm. As it can be seen in the previous researches, the teacher used frontal teaching
almost all the time and the use of other organisational forms is minimal. The interview was
done after all the observed lessons and was not intended to be based exactly on the observed
activities but rather on the assumptions of the teacher about teaching and learning.
Some of the questions used in the interview are inspired by the questions proposed by
Richards and Lockhart, who noted them in their book Reflective Teaching in Second
Language Classrooms (Richards, Lockhart 1996: 34, 36, 37).
The interview (I=interviewer, T=teacher):
I:
What organisational forms do you usually use in the lessons?
T:
I usually use frontal teaching, pair work, group work, and, individual work.
I:
Which activities do you prefer doing in frontal teaching organisational form
and
which in pair work and group work?
T:
I use frontal teaching when I am explaining grammar, when doing questionanswer exchange, when doing textbook exercises, for translations, during
discussions and for instructions. I use pair work when I need the learners to
practise dialogues, and when practising vocabulary, where one learner gives the word
in Czech and another translates and vice versa. I use group work with
dialogues
where
there are more than two speakers and with various group projects.
I:
How often do you use pair work and group work?
T:
I usually use it when doing dialogues or when practising language.
am working with the textbook where there are not many activities
Because
I
supporting
dialogues, I use pair work quite rarely. I often have to make some extra activities done in pair
work myself or use different resources.
I:
How do you see your role in the classroom?
T:
My role as a teacher in the classroom is in all cases irretrievable. My role is
directive, controlling, praising, and, of course, exemplary.
I:
What roles are learners expected to assume in your classroom?
T:
I expect my learners to be active, to participate, and to cooperate with me.
Furthermore, I expect them be interested in the subject and that is why I make
lessons as interesting as possible.
my
The interview shows that the teacher uses all of the organisational forms. Still, the use
of frontal teaching seems to be more preferred by the teacher than other organisational forms.
The second and the third question may serve as the evidence. The teacher uses frontal
teaching for activities, such as grammar explanations, question-answer activities, textbook
exercises based on filling in, translations, for class discussions and for instructions. The
teacher uses pair work mainly for dialogues, and group work with ‘dialogues’ requiring more
than two participants and with project work. Furthermore, she does pair work and group work
rarely, because the textbook she uses is based more on frontal teaching and does not support
pair work or group work. In the observed lessons, it may be seen that the teacher uses frontal
teaching most of the time, mainly with previously mentioned activities. During the
observations, the teacher used pair work for dialogues and group work for organising the
activity based on the decisions of the learners. There are no textbook activities that would
support pair work or group work during the observations. The explanation of her use of
frontal teaching may be also seen in the answer on the fourth question where the teacher
stated that her role in the classroom is controlling, directive, praising and being a model for
the learners. All these roles are typical for frontal teaching, where the teacher directs, controls
and finally praises or provides feedback. The teacher’s expectations from the learners are
mainly their interest in the subject, in this case English, their activity, participation in the
activities and cooperation with the teacher. It must be said that during the lessons, the teacher
always tried to involve learners by asking them questions or playing games with them, which
may have raised their interest in the subject.
To conclude with the interview shows that the teacher’s use of frontal teaching is
influenced by her assumptions of her role in the classroom and by the use of the textbook
based more on frontal teaching and rarely supporting pair work and group work.
8. Conclusion
This thesis was focusing on frontal teaching as one of the possible organisational
forms. The main aspects connected with frontal teaching have been described and used as the
background for the research. As it has been stated in the introduction, frontal teaching is still
the most preferred organisational form in the teaching and learning process all around the
world. That is why the first research has been done in order to find out the proportional
representation of frontal teaching and different organisational forms and the functionality of
frontal teaching according to the criteria in the theoretical part described and its effectiveness
in relation to aims of English language teaching.
The quantitative research on the proportional representation of the observed
organisational forms showed that frontal teaching was used in seventy- five percent which is
eight hundred and sixty seven minutes. If this was transformed into forty-five minutes long
lessons, this would finally take nineteen lessons out of the final twenty-six observed lessons,
which is more than half of it. The other organisational forms when summarized would take
only 25 percent from the amount of one thousand one hundred and seventy-three minutes/26
lessons. The results of the research showed that frontal teaching was used most of the time,
therefore the results of the research support this hypothesis:
Frontal teaching is so far more used organisational form in the teaching and learning
process than pair work and group work.
The next phase of the practical part was the qualitative research based on the main
aspects of frontal teaching and the functionality of frontal teaching with the observed
activities. The aim was to find out whether the use of frontal teaching with the observed
activities was functional according to the criteria stated in the theoretical part and whether the
use of frontal teaching was effective in relation to aims of English language teaching. At first,
the activities were divided into categories according to their nature and type. Then each
category of observed activities has been analysed according to the observations to point out
the typical features, such as interaction patterns, teacher talking time, learner talking time, role
of the teacher, use of frontal teaching in relation to types of activities, their aim or phases of
the activities. Consequently, the main features were compared to the criteria described in the
theoretical part. Finally, it was found that the main aspects of frontal teaching with the
observed activities and the criteria were mainly in accordance, and the use of frontal teaching
with the observed activities was mainly foolproof. However, during the observations, only
two communicative activities appeared and minority of the activities focused on form rather
than meaning. Therefore, the results of the research cannot finally support this hypothesis:
The use of frontal teaching with the observed activities functions according to
the
criteria described in the theoretical part and fulfils the aim of English language
teaching.
The last part of the research was the interview with the observed teacher. It was done
to find out her assumptions about teaching and learning. The aim of the interview was to find
out why the teacher used frontal teaching so often. This was done by asking previously
prepared questions. The results of the interview finally showed that the teacher’s use of
frontal teaching is influenced by her assumptions of her role in the classroom and by the use
of the textbook based more on frontal teaching and rarely supporting pair work and group
work. Furthermore, she uses mainly pair work and group work for dialogues and project
work, and therefore, it means that for different types of activities, the teacher uses frontal
teaching, as it has been seen in her lessons.
Resumé
Tato diplomová práce se zabývá frontálním vyučováním jako jednou z možných
organizačních forem. V dnešní době je stále více upřednostňován komunikativní přístup k
vyučování a učení, což bylo důvodem výběru tématu organizačních forem. Stále více je
zdůrazňován význam použití skupinové práce a práce ve dvojicích, ačkoliv frontální
vyučování je stále upřednostňováno učiteli anglického jazyka po celém světě. Proto se tato
diplomová práce zaměřuje na frontální vyučování a jeho specifika a použití. Ve výzkumu se
autor zaměřuje na proporcionální zastoupení frontálního vyučování a jiných organizačních
forem ve výuce anglického jazyka. a dále na funkčnost použití frontálního vyučování s
různými typy aktivit a efektivitu použití frontálního vyučování s ohledem na cíle výuky
anglického jazyka. Cílem diplomové práce je s pomocí teoretické části zjistit, zda se výsledky
výzkumu opírají o následující hypotézy:
Frontální vyučování je doposud více používanou organizační formou ve výuce než
práce ve dvojicích a práce ve skupině.
Frontálního vyučování s aktivitami pozorovanými v hodinách anglického jazyka
funguje ve vztahu s kritérii popsanými v teoretické části diplomové práce a splňuje cíle
výuky anglického jazyka.
Ve vyučovacím procesu se můžeme setkat nejen s frontálním vyučováním, ale také s
dalšími čtyřmi organizačními formami, kterými jsou samostatná práce, práce ve dvojicích a
skupinová práce.
Frontální vyučování je definováno spoluprací učitele a žáků, kdy učitel obvykle stojí
před třídou a kontroluje nebo monitoruje žáky, kteří vykonávají stejnou práci, zadanou
učitelem.
Frontální vyučování se vyvíjelo už v dobách před J. A. Komenským, který byl ale
první, kdo tuto novou demokratickou tendenci dále rozvinul. Herbart byl dalším, kdo se začal
otázkou organizace ve vyučování zabývat a začal rozvíjet nový systém. Stále ale byla
opomíjena žákova individualita a potřeby. Proto bylo vyučování stále kritizováno, což bylo
důvodem reformy ve dvacátém století, kdy se rozvinuly i nové organizační formy.
Frontální vyučování je velmi kritizováno, ale přesto má i svoje kladné stránky.
Umožňuje například učiteli učit velký počet žáků najednou. Žáci mají pocit, že patří do určité
skupiny a jsou jejich součástí, tudíž se cítí jako celek nežli jako jedinec a navíc se mezi nimi
vytváří sociální vztahy, což podporuje vzájemnou kooperaci mezi žáky. Při výkladu je
výhodou, že se celá třída soustředí na to, co učitel říká. Toto je výhodou při vysvětlování nebo
dávání instrukcí, což učiteli ušetří čas a celá třída se může soustředit na následující aktivitu.
Přesto má frontální vyučování také své nevýhody. Při frontálním vyučování učitel většinou
nebere zřetel na individualitu žáků a přistupuje k nim jako ke skupině. Participace velkého
počtu žáků ve frontálním vyučování je minimální a žáci mají jen málo příležitostí k
procvičování jazyka. Frontální vyučování také nepodporuje komunikativní cíle aktivit, tudíž
nepodporuje vzájemnou interakci mezi žáky a žáci nemají mnoho prostoru k procvičování
jejich komunikativních dovedností.
Použití organizačních forem záleží na rozhodnutí učitele, který musí zvážit jejich
výběr s ohledem na cíle, fáze a typy aktivit. Cíle aktivit hrají důležitou roli při rozhodování
učitele o výběru organizačních forem. Učitel by měl zvážit, jakou organizační formu vybere
vzhledem k cílům aktivit, které se samozřejmě liší. Jediným omezením pro výběr frontálního
vyučování jsou aktivity s komunikativním cílem, které tato organizační forma nepodporuje.
Při výběru organizačních forem se musí také zohlednit typ aktivity. Frontální vyučování je
nejvíce používáno s typy aktivit jako prezentační aktivity, při kterých učitel představuje nové
jazykové struktury nebo témata. U procvičovacích aktivit je použití frontálního vyučování
vhodné zejména s aktivitami jako procvičování, sborové opakování, kde učitel stojí jako
jazykový model. Aktivity které vyžadují od žáka, aby produkoval již osvojené jazykové
struktury, mají většinou určitý komunikativní cíl, proto není použití frontálního vyučování
vhodné. Frontální vyučování se používá většinou s aktivitami, které se zaměřují na přesnost,
což jsou aktivity, které vyžadují kontrolu učitele. To jsou aktivity jako například procvičování
gramatiky, slovní zásoby, výslovnosti, dále jsou to aktivity jako jazykové hry, které jsou
podobné procvičování, ale dělané zábavnou formou nebo to může být kontrolovaná
konverzace. Na druhé straně aktivity, které jsou zaměřeny spíše na plynulost, jsou používány
ve frontálním vyučování zejména, když je potřeba žákům ukázat, že i oni mohou cílový jazyk
použít. Jsou to aktivity jako konverzace, simulace a poslech. Jak již bylo řečeno, užití
frontálního vyučování není vhodné s komunikativními aktivitami, ale přesto má každá
komunikativní aktivita svou přípravnou fázi, kde většinou žáci procvičují různé jazykové
struktury, které vyžadují kontrolu učitele, a proto je s těmito aktivitami použití frontálního
vyučování možné. Fáze aktivit jsou dalším faktorem, který by mohl ovlivnit výběr frontálního
vyučování. Frontální vyučování se používá zejména ve fázi, kdy učitel představuje, co se
bude v hodině dít, což je úvodní fáze aktivity. Použití frontálního vyučování je také vhodné v
přípravné fázi aktivity, při které figuruje opět učitel jako hlavní aktér a organizuje, dává
instrukce a demonstruje příklad. V konečné fázi aktivity je použití frontálního vhodné
zejména při poskytování zpětné vazby.
Organizační formy určují učiteli jeho role, které mohou být v různých situacích jiné.
Role učitele ve frontálním vyučování je zejména kontrolující, kdy má učitel plnou kontrolu
nad obsahem aktivity a zaujímá řídící roli. Další rolí učitele ve frontálním vyučování je role
organizační, ve které učitel poskytuje informace o průběhu aktivity a určuje základní postupy.
Ve frontálním vyučování může učitel působit jako hodnotitel, který žákům nabízí zpětnou
vazbu, opravuje jejich chyby a hodnotí jejich výkony. Učitel též může působit jako zdroj
informací, když chce, aby měla celá třída přehled o tom, co je potřebné pro tu danou situaci
při různých aktivitách, což je například vysvětlování výrazů nebo kulturních fakt, která žáci
neznají. Každý učitel by při jakékoliv organizační formě měl mít přehled o pokroku žáků, o
tom co jim jde a nejde, aby jim mohl následně nabídnout zpětnou vazbu. V tomto případě je
učitel pozorovatelem, který monitoruje žáky a jejich pokrok. Učitel může také zastupovat roli
tutora, která je poskytována podle potřeb žáků a je vyhledávána v případě, kdy žáci
spolupracují nebo vykonávají samostatnou práci a potřebují učitele, aby jim pomohl nebo
poradil, dále je to role nápovědy, kdy učitel pomáhá žákům, když si neví rady nebo je navádí
na správnou cestu. Tyto dvě předchozí role učitele jsou nutné v případě, když chce jednotlivec
nebo skupina pomoci, kdy učitel postupuje dle individuálních potřeb žáků. U poslední role
kterou může učitel mít je role účastníka. Při frontálním vyučování může učitel působit jako
účastník jen při diskuzích, kdy podporuje žáky k mluvení nabízením svých vlastních názorů.
Důležitá je ovšem i role žáka při frontálním vyučování. Žák je ale většinou jen pasivním
příjemcem informací poskytovaných učitelem nebo jen odpovídá na učitelovi otázky. Role
učitele a žáka jsou vzájemně propojeny s rolí vyučovacích materiálů, používaných při
hodinách, který ovlivňuje výběr metod a organizačních forem ve vyučování.
Interakce v hodinách je dalším faktorem ovlivňujícím výběr organizačních forem. Ve
třídě můžeme rozlišovat dva druhy výměny informací mezi žáky a učitelem. Tou první je
transakce, což je sdělování informací od jednoho zdroje k druhému, většinou od učitele k
žákům. Transakce je plně kontrolována učitelem, což se děje většinou ve frontálním
vyučování. Kdežto interakce, je vzájemná výměna informací, která podporuje komunikaci
mezi dvěma účastníky. Dále můžeme rozlišovat mezi pedagogickou interakcí a verbální
interakcí. Verbální interakce se účastní dva lidé, kteří si vzájemně vyměňují informace,
kdežto u pedagogické interakce je to konkretizováno interakcí, která může směřovat buď od
učitele k žákovi/žákům nebo od žáka k učiteli nebo jinému žákovi a má většinou konkrétní
pedagogický důvod.
Interakcí charakteristickou pro frontální vyučování je interakce učitel-žák/žáci. Při této
interakci většinou učitel popisuje, vysvětluje, vypráví nebo nařizuje, dále také klade otázky a
nebo reaguje na veškeré podněty v hodinách, dále učitel chválí, kritizuje nebo žertuje se žáky.
Při interakci žák-učitel reaguje žák na otázky učitele, komentuje nebo informuje o něčem pro
něj důležitým. Při interakci žák-žák je použití frontálního vyučování možné v případě situace
takzvaného otevřeného páru, kdy žáci například čtou rozhovor nebo si vzájemně odpovídají
na otázky při diskuzích.
S interakcí ve třídě je úzce spojena i účast žáků v procesu výměny informací.
Dominantnost učitele při různých aktivitách ovlivňuje účast žáků, proto čím méně je učitel
dominantní tím více příležitostí pro žáky, aby mohli být aktivnější a účastnit komunikace ve
vyučovacím procesu. Při frontálním vyučování má učitel dominantní roli, proto nemají žáci
dostatek příležitostí k účasti. Participace žáků však může být zdokonalena, kdyby učitel
například více kladl otázky než dával instrukce a kladl více otevřených otázek nežli těch,
které vyžadují jednoslovnou odpověď.
Protože učitel ve frontálním vyučování často mluví, je důležité zmínit hlavní účel jeho
řeči. Učitel mluví většinou když dává instrukce, kontroluje, poskytuje zpětnou vazbu, chválí,
ptá se na různé informace, poskytuje informace, uvádí příklady cílového jazyka kontroluje
nebo testuje žákovo porozumění, žertuje, udržuje atmosféru ve třídě, vypořádává se s pocity
žáků, objasňuje názory žáků, napomáhá studentům orientovat se v úkolu, opakuje po
studentech a klade otázky, které jsou velmi častým důvodem pro učitelovu řeč v hodinách.
Otázky kladené učitelem mohou mít spoustu důvodů. Otázky mohou být kladeny, aby
podnítili nebo udržovali žákův zájem, aby povzbuzovali studenty k zamyšlení nad obsahem
hodiny, dále umožňují učiteli objasnit to, co žák říká, dále mají zjišťovací funkci, když chce
učitel od žáků určitou odpověď, kontrolují žákovo porozumění, podporují účast žáků při
hodině. Dále jsou užitečné, když se chce učitel dozvědět od žáků něco zajímavého, když chce
učitel udržet pozornost žáků na určité téma a také umožňují učiteli komunikovat se žáky.
Existuje mnoho druhů otázek, které mohou být kladeny. Buď jsou to otázky, které vyžadují
jednoslovnou odpověď nebo jsou to otázky, které vyžadují víceslovnou odpověď a podporují
žákovo myšlení. Otázky také mohou mít konkrétní odpověď, což jsou otázky uzavřené nebo
různé odpovědi, což jsou otázky otevřené. V průběhu vyučování klade učitel taktéž tak zvané
procedurální otázky, které se týkají organizace a postupu v hodině. Když učitel klade otázky a
vyvolává žáky, může se stát, že se bude soustředit jen na určitý okruh žáků. To znamená, že
učitel vyvolává žáky, kteří jsou v jeho ‘action zone’, čímž mohou být například žáci, sedící v
prostřední straně před učitelem. Tohoto efektu by se měl učitel snažit vyvarovat, aby byla
účast všech žáků v hodinách přiměřeně stejná.
Stejně zásadní jako je řeč učitele je řeč žáků. Jak bylo již řečeno, ve frontálním
vyučování žáci mluví většinou když jsou tázáni nebo vyvoláni. Je důležité poskytnout žákům
co nejvíce příležitostí k tomu, aby mluvili a procvičovali své jazykové dovednosti.
Poslední částí týkající se použití organizačních forem jsou názory nebo přesvědčení
učitele o vyučování a učení se. Na učitele v přípravné praxi nebo vlastní praxi působí mnoho
faktorů, které mohou ovlivnit jeho názory a přesvědčení. Těmito faktory mohou být například
jeho vlastní zkušenosti, když byl žákem, zkušenosti s tím, co nejlépe funguje, jeho zavedená
praxe, osobní preference nebo principy pocházející z určitých vyučovacích metod a strategií.
Každý učitel má svoje vlastní přesvědčení, která mohou být zjištěna kladením záměrných
otázek, které prozkoumají učitelův pohled na způsoby vyučování a učení se.
Před samotným výzkumem byla specifikována kritéria použití frontálního vyučování,
která sloužila k hodnocení pozorovaných aktivit. Dále byly vytvořeny náslechové archy, které
obsahovaly popis aktivit, použité organizační formy délku času, kdy mluvila učitelka a žák a
druhy interakce ve třídě. Dvacet šest náslechů bylo provedeno v hodinách jedné učitelky v
šesté, sedmé, osmé a deváté třídě, kde tato učitelka vyučuje. Rozhovor s učitelkou je
dodatečnou fází výzkumu, kde jsou zjišťovány důvody použití organizačních forem a její
názory na vyučování a učení. Výzkum se skládá ze dvou částí. První výzkum se zaměřoval na
proporcionální zastoupení frontálního vyučování a ostatních organizačních forem, jehož cílem
bylo podpořit tuto hypotézu:
Frontální vyučování je doposud více používanou organizační formou ve výuce než
práce ve dvojicích a práce ve skupině.
Výzkum zjistil, že frontální vyučování zastoupilo sedmdesát pět procent, což bylo osm set
šedesát sedm minut a zhruba devatenáct vyučovacích hodin. Ostatní formy nezastoupily ani
polovinu z observovaných hodin, což následně podpořilo stanovenou hypotézu.
Druhý výzkum se zaměřoval více na použití a funkčnost frontálního vyučování s
pozorovanými aktivitami s ohledem na kritéria, stanovená v teoretické část diplomové práce a
efektivitu frontálního vyučování s ohledem na cíle výuky anglického jazyka. Cílem výzkumu
bylo zjistit, zda se potvrdí tato hypotéza:
Frontálního vyučování s aktivitami pozorovanými v hodinách anglického jazyka je
funkční ve vztahu s kritérii popsanými v teoretické části diplomové práce a splňuje cíle
výuky anglického jazyka.
Průběh výzkumu probíhal tak, že se pozorované aktivity rozčlenily do skupin a následně
analyzovaly. Každá analýza pak byla porovnána s teoretickým základem nastíněným v první
části diplomové práce. Výzkum zjistil, že se funkčnost frontálního vyučování s pozorovanými
aktivitami vzhledem ke stanoveným kritériím potvrdila, nicméně s ohledem na cíle výuky
aktivit nemohla být stanovená hypotéza potvrzena, protože z dvaceti šesti pozorovaných
hodin byly napozorovány pouze dvě komunikativní aktivity a frontální vyučování, postavené
na formě místo významu nemůže cíle výuky anglického jazyka podpořit.
Bibliography
Breen, M., and Candlin, C.N. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in
language teaching. Applied Linguistics 1.
Byrne, D. 1991. Techniques for Classroom Interaction. London: Longman.
Harmer, J. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching (completely revised and
updated). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Littlewood, W. 1990. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mallamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moon, J. 2005. Children Learning English. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Nunan, D. 1990. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. and Lamb, C. 1996. The Self-directed Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Parrott, M. 1993. Tasks for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S. 1993. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. and Lockhart, C. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scrivener, J. 1998. Learning Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Limited.
Scrivener, J. 1994. PPP and after. The Teacher Trainer.
Skalková, J. 1999. Obecná didaktika. Praha: ISV nakladatelství.
Štverák, V. 1988. Stručné dějiny pedagogiky. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
Ur, P. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, M. and Burden, R. L. 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Internet resources:
Lancaster University U.K. 2002-2005. Teacher Beliefs. [viewed 10 June]. http://
www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/courses/ling/ling402/essays/expertise-1.pdf
Staff Matters. 2005. Teachers' beliefs and classroom practice. Updated 14 September 2005
[viewed 10 June].
http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/mindmatters/staff/professional/beliefsandpractice.htm
The Essentials of Language Teaching. 2003, 2004. Teaching Goals and Methods – Goal:
Communicative Competence. [viewed 10 June].
http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/goalsmethods/goal.htm
Anna Flyman-Mattsson. 1999. Students’ communicative behaviour in a foreign language
classroom. Updated 19 June 2006 [viewed 20 June].
http://www.ling.lu.se/disseminations/pdf/47/Flyman.pdf
APPENDIX
ÚDAJE PRO KNIHOVNICKOU DATABÁZI
Název práce
Autor práce
Obor
Frontal Teaching in EFL Classes
Zorka Stínková
Rok obhajoby
Učitelství anglického jazyka
2006
Vedoucí práce
Mgr. Pavel Brebera
Anotace
Tato práce se zabývá frontálním vyučováním
v hodinách anglického jazyka, zejména jeho
specifikací, použitím a vztahem k různým
aspektům s ním spojeným jako jsou role
učitele, interakce ve třídě a postoje učitele
k výuce. Výzkumná část se zabývá
proporcionálním zastoupením frontálního
vyučování a jiných organizačních forem a
jeho funkčností s různými typy aktivit.
frontální vyučování, učitel, žák, role učitele,
interakce ve třídě , aktivita
Klíčová slova